DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The Office notes that method Claim 23 has been found to recite the following contingent limitations:
Claim 23: “A method comprising:
processing instructions on processing circuitry;
performing, in response to a cold reset trigger event, a cold reset by resetting the processing circuitry;
performing, in response to a warm reset trigger event, a warm reset by resetting a subset of state that is reset in response to the cold reset trigger event;
determining whether warm and cold branch recording configuration values held in at least one register satisfy a predetermined condition; and
when the warm and cold branch recording configuration values satisfy the predetermined condition, enabling branch recording, the branch recording comprising storing, in branch record storage circuitry, information about processed branch instructions, wherein the method comprises making the information about the processed branch instruction available for diagnostic analysis, and wherein the cold reset comprises resetting both of the warm and cold branch recording configuration values, and the warm reset comprises resetting the warm branch recording configuration value and leaving the cold branch recording configuration value unchanged.”
As such, the Office has interpreted this claim language in accordance with MPEP 2111.04 (II), which recites, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.”
The Office notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 23 does not include performing the contingent “in response to…” and “when…” steps indicated above, since the claim does not recite the precedent conditions of “a cold reset trigger event,” “a warm reset trigger event” or “the warm and cold branch recording configuration values satisfy the predetermined condition.”
The Office has examined Claim 23 in light of these contingent limitations.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites on Line 5: “the warm reset and cold reset” which should be “the warm reset and the cold reset”.
Claims 5-12 are also objected to since they depend from objected Claim 4, and as such inherit the same deficiencies.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to determining whether certain values satisfy a condition without significantly more.
The limitation in Independent Claim 23 of determining whether a set of values satisfy a condition, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation of “determining whether warm and cold branch recording configuration values held in at least one register satisfy a predetermined condition” in Claim 23, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of a mental process. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
With regard to the “processing instructions on processing circuitry” elements of Claim 23, these elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The Office further notes that the remaining limitations of Claim 23 not specifically addressed above are not required to be performed given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, see the above Claim Interpretation section for additional details. As such, the remaining limitations of Claim 23 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreau (US Patent 4,511,960; hereinafter “Boudreau”) in view of Bortfeld et al. (US Patent 7,050,958; hereinafter “Bortfeld”).
Claim 23:
Boudreau teaches a method comprising:
processing instructions on processing circuitry (Col. 10 Ln. 30: “The programming and operation of the software analyzer is controlled by microprocessor 306”);
determining whether warm and cold branch recording configuration values held in at least one register satisfy a predetermined condition (Col. 50 ll. 14-39: “Condition registers A through D can be used to specify four different conditions, the occurrence of any one of which will cause the data and address bits from common bus 200 to be recorded into trace RAM 319… condition register A could be used to specify a starting address by specifying a tracing is to occur if the address on the common bus is greater than or equal to the address in condition register A and condition register B could be used to specify an ending address by specifying that the trace is not to occur if the address from the data bus is equal to or greater than that found in condition register B. This checking for four separate conditions or less than four combination conditions is made possible because each time that a bus cycle associated with the CPU occurs on common bus 200, (i.e., each time the CPU is either the bus master or slave) the information on the bus is compared against condition registers A through D in a pipeline fashion. The comparison is made first against the conditions in condition register A, then in B, then in C and then in D. Each condition register A through D has the ability to set the two control bits (the trace bit and the enable bit) within trace control 316.”); and
when the warm and cold branch recording configuration values satisfy the predetermined condition, enabling branch recording (Col. 50 Ll. 58-62: “At the appropriate time during a bus cycle, if the trace bit is set, a signal from trace control 316 on line 329 controls the incrementing of the trace address counter 317 which thereby provides for the retention of the information in trace RAM 319.”),
the branch recording comprising storing, in branch record storage circuitry, information about processed branch instructions, wherein the method comprises making the information about the processed branch instruction available for diagnostic analysis, (Col. 3 ll. 9-12: “a routine may be written to monitor the jump/branch trap/interrupt. This routine can then be used to analyze which program location was attempting to perform the jump/branch instruction to the specified location.” Examiner’s Note: This step is not required given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, as discussed above in the Claim Interpretation section.), and
wherein the cold reset comprises resetting both of the warm and cold branch recording configuration values, and the warm reset comprises resetting the warm branch recording configuration value and leaving the cold branch recording configuration value unchanged (Examiner’s Note: These steps are not required given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, as discussed above in the Claim Interpretation section. It is further noted that prior art was not found which teaches or makes obvious this limitation.).
With further regard to Claim 1, Boudreau does not teach the following, however, Bortfeld teaches:
performing, in response to a cold reset trigger event, a cold reset by resetting the processing circuitry; and performing, in response to a warm reset trigger event, a warm reset by resetting a subset of state that is reset in response to the cold reset trigger event (Col. 13 ll. 4-9: “In one embodiment, a well defined state may be a ‘warm start’ that involves resetting only the registers of the components in the virtual prototype. In an alternative embodiment, the well defined state may be a ‘cold start’ that involves resetting both the registers and the memory of the components in the virtual prototype.” Examiner’s Note: These steps are not required given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, as discussed above in the Claim Interpretation section.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed by Boudreau with the cold and warm reset as taught by Bortfeld since “A cycle based simulation environment allows a system model to be included as a component of a higher level system model” (Bortfeld Col. 11 ll. 28-30).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 13-22 are allowed.
Claims 4-12 recite allowable subject matter, but are currently objected to as discussed above in the Claim Objections section.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The above-mentioned claims have been placed in condition for allowance due to the inclusion of a novel system for selectively enabling branch recording, particularly with regard to the limitations of Independent Claim 1 which recite:
“wherein the cold reset comprises resetting both of the warm and cold branch recording configuration values, and the warm reset comprises resetting the warm branch recording configuration value and leaving the cold branch recording configuration value unchanged.”
The prior art teaches various systems and methods for performing branch recording, but nowhere does any of the prior art disclose a system or method which selectively enables branch recording in the manner disclosed by the Applicant’s independent claims, particularly with regard to the specific limitations discussed above. The fact that the prior art does not teach or render obvious the instant application as recited in the independent claim has placed the aforementioned claims in condition for allowance.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows:
Gilkerson et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0185734) discloses a trace unit, diagnostic apparatus and data processing apparatus for tracing of conditional instructions, including the use of control flags for controlling certain data is to be traced.
Rotenberg et al. (“Control Independence in Trace Processors,” 1999) discusses development of a trace processor microarchitecture, including discussion regarding the tracing of branch instructions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joanne G. Macasiano whose telephone number is (571)270-7749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:30 AM to 6:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at (571) 272-3338. 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.
/JOANNE G MACASIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights