Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/620,948

APPARATUSES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS FOR OUT-OF-ORDER TASK RESOLUTION IN INTEGRATED CIRCUITS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 28, 2024
Examiner
METZGER, MICHAEL J
Art Unit
2183
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allow Rate
435 granted / 482 resolved
+35.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
509
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.0%
-34.0% vs TC avg
§103
53.6%
+13.6% vs TC avg
§102
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
§112
8.7%
-31.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 482 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Response to Arguments 1. Applicant’s arguments, filed November 17th, 2025, with respect to the rejections of the independent claims have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Fleischman et al (US 2013/0007418). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 2. Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mellempudi et al (US 2024/0045691, herein Mellempudi) in view of Fleischman et al (US 2013/0007418, herein Fleischman. Regarding claim 1, Mellempudi teaches an integrated circuit comprising: a first computing region and a second computing region, wherein the integrated circuit performs computations according to an out-of-order execution scheduling scheme (Figs 12-14, [0112-0113], out of order execution); a first retirement register that stores a first set of entries comprising information pertaining to results of computations performed by the first computing region (Figs 12-14, [0112], first retirement register file of first core); and a second retirement register that stores a second set of entries comprising information pertaining exclusively to results of computations performed by the second computing region (Figs 12-14, [0112], [0120], second retirement register file of another core). Mellempudi fails to teach wherein the first retirement register stores information pertaining to results of computations performed by the first and second computing regions. Fleischman teaches a integrated circuit wherein a first retirement register stores a first of entries comprising information pertaining to results of computations performed by a first and second computing region ([0019-0022], [0024-0025], retire unit & queue comprising entries for completed instructions, [0024], merged retire queue including results from separate operation types i.e. floating-point or integer, Fig 1, floating point and integer units as distinct computing regions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Mellempudi and Fleischman to utilize a merged retirement register. While Mellempudi does not explicitly state that the exemplary retirement register files may include both dedicated/exclusive sections and a merged section including results for both computing regions, both Mellempudi and Fleischman describe techniques for handling the retirement of instructions which have been computed in separate regions (Mellempudi Fig 13, different regions of execution circuitry & Fleischman Fig 1, separate FP and integer units). Therefore, allowing the retirement circuit of Mellempudi to track results from multiple types of execution regions at once, as disclosed by Fleischman, would merely entail a simple substitution of known prior art elements to achieve predictable results, and thus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 2, The combination of Mellempudi and Fleischman teaches the integrated circuit of claim 1, wherein: the second computing region comprises a floating point unit; and wherein the second set of entries comprises information pertaining to results of computations performed by the floating point unit (Mellempudi [0112], [0114], various floating point operations). Regarding claim 3, The combination of Mellempudi and Fleischman teaches the integrated circuit of claim 1, wherein the second retirement register stores each entry in the second set of entries in association with a retirement identifier that maps the entry to a position in a global retirement queue, the global retirement queue implemented with the first retirement register specifying a retirement order for results of computations performed by both the first and second computing regions (Mellempudi [0112], [0228], retirement circuit and retirement queue, Fleischman Fig 3, [0024-0025], merged retirement queue tracking instructions via pointers). Regarding claim 4, The combination of Mellempudi and Fleischman teaches the integrated circuit of claim 1, wherein the first set of entries comprises information necessary to properly retire calculations performed by the first computing region and the second computing region (Mellempudi [0120], [0228], reorder buffer, retirement register files, and retirement queues to implement accurate retirement order). Regarding claim 5, The combination of Mellempudi and Fleischman teaches the integrated circuit of claim 4, wherein the first set of entries stored in the first retirement register comprises pointers to information stored in the second retirement register (Mellempudi [0112], instruction pointers stored in register files). Regarding claim 6, The combination of Mellempudi and Fleischman teaches the integrated circuit of claim 1, wherein the second set of entries pertain to results of a single data type (Mellempudi [0112], typed register files). Regarding claim 7, The combination of Mellempudi and Fleischman teaches the integrated circuit of claim 6, wherein the single type is the result of floating point operations (Mellempudi [0112], various floating point register types). Regarding claim 8, The combination of Mellempudi and Fleischman teaches the integrated circuit of claim 1, wherein the second retirement register is physically disposed within the second computing region (Mellempudi Figs 12-14, [0112], register files and retirement circuit in each core). Regarding claim 9, The combination of Mellempudi and Fleischman teaches the integrated circuit of claim 1, further comprising a retirement logic management component that ensures results of computations performed by the first computing region and the second computing region are processed according to the out-of-order execution scheduling scheme (Mellempudi [0228], reorder buffer for performing OoO execution). Regarding claim 10, The combination of Mellempudi and Fleischman teaches the integrated circuit of claim 1, wherein the integrated circuit comprises a central processing unit (CPU) (Mellempudi [0047], [0217], cores including CPUs). Claims 11-19 refer to a system embodiment of the integrated circuit embodiment of claims 1-9. The above rejections for claims 1-9 are thus applicable to claims 11-19, respectively. Claim 20 refers to a method embodiment of the integrated circuit embodiment of claim 1. The above rejection for claim 1 is thus applicable to claim 20. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Anderson (US 2019/0243646) discloses a processor that uses dedicated writeback queues. Luo (US 2003/0093702) discloses a processor with a dedicated writeback register. Edmondson (US 5,471,591) discloses a processor with a retire queue for merging results from different pipelines. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J METZGER whose telephone number is (571)272-3105. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jyoti Mehta can be reached at 571-270-3995. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MICHAEL J METZGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 28, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 17, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 27, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591517
FETCHING VECTOR DATA ELEMENTS WITH PADDING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12578965
Biased Indirect Control Transfer Prediction
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12566610
MICROPROCESSOR WITH APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR REPLAYING LOAD INSTRUCTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12566607
ROBUST, EFFICIENT MULTIPROCESSOR-COPROCESSOR INTERFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12561139
ENCODING AND DECODING VARIABLE LENGTH INSTRUCTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
90%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+8.1%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 482 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month