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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office acknowledges receipt of the following items from the Applicant:
Papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) have been placed of record in the
file.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 3/15/24 was considered.
Applicant elected 1-18 without traverse.
Claim 19 has been rejoined with the selected claim set 1-18 since it recites the method of operating the data processing apparatus similar to that of the recited data processing apparatus in claim 1.
Examiner maintained the restriction of claim 20.
Claim 20 is directed to a computer-readable medium to store computer-readable code for fabrication of data processing apparatus, such subject matter requires different classification search relating to semiconductor design or fabrication processes (class G06F), rather than in the classification of G11C11/4078 or G11C11/4076, G11C11/408 which is applicable to claim 1-19. Claim 20 presents a distinct search burden.
Furthermore, claim 20 lacks of written description for the limitation of “fabrication of a data processing apparatus”. No where in the specification did the applicant discloses the fabrication of data processing apparatus. The specification does not describe any steps or procedures for the fabrication process of the data processing apparatus. Currently, claim 20 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Specification
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC ' 112
Claims 3, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations.
In claim 3, which depends on claim 1, recites the limitation “the restriction circuit”. However, claim 1 does not claim a “restriction circuit”;
In claim 11, which depends on claim5, recites the limitation of “each substream in the substreams”. However, claim 5 does not claim any “substreams”.
In claim 12, which depends on claim 5, recites the limitation of “each substream in the substreams”. However, claim 5 does not claim any “substreams”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jenkinson et al, U.S. Patent Application No. US 2021/0183433.
With regard to claims 1, 16-17, 19, Jenkinson discloses a data processing apparatus and method comprising memory access circuitry configured to issue access requests to a memory system (page 5, [0040]); estimation circuitry configured to estimate a statistical cardinality count on memory row addresses accessed by the access requests (page 6, [0050]); and decay circuitry configured to apply an exponential time-based decay during estimation of the statistical cardinality count (page 8, [0072]).
With regard to claims 2 and 4, Jenkinson further comprising: restriction circuitry configured to restricts the access requests in response to the statistical cardinality count.
With regard to claims 3, Jenkinson further discloses wherein the restriction circuitry is configured to restrict the rate at which the access requests are issued to the memory system to at least some of the memory row addresses in response to the statistical cardinality count.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-15 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and have overcome the 112 th rejection set forth above.
The prior art of record does not show the limitation of wherein the estimation circuitry is configured to estimate the statistical cardinality count on the memory row addresses using a longest seen pattern in the memory row addresses.
The prior art of record does not show the limitation of wherein separation circuitry to separate accesses requests into a plurality of sub streams and to estimate the statistical cardinality count on the memory row addresses by estimating a statistical cardinality count for each of the substreams.
The prior art of record does not show the limitation of wherein the memory system is configured to use a plurality of trench capacitors, each to store a single bit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants’ disclosure. Wires et al (US 2017/0060769) disclose a system device and method of operating an estimating cardinality information for memory/storage access streams using distinct value counters and probabilistic counting techniques to characterize locality and working set behavior. However, the reference was not relied upon because if fails to teach or suggest applying an exponential time-based decay during estimation of the statistical cardinality count, as required by the presently claimed invention,
When responding to the office action, Applicants’ are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and page numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist the examiner to locate the appropriate paragraphs.
A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire 3 (three) months and 0 (zero) day from the date of this letter. Failure to respond within the period for response will cause the application to become abandoned (see MPEP 710.02 (b)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Connie Yoha, whose telephone number is (571) 272-1799. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Fri. from 8:00 A.M. to 5:30 PM. The examiner's supervisor, Alexander Sofocleous, can be reached at (571) 272-0635. The fax phone number for this Group is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov Should you have questions on access to the Private Pair system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CONNIE C YOHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2825
Prosecution Insights