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 .
Claims 1, 3-21, 26-30 are presented for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/6/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 3-21, 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis, U.S. Patent 4,814,978 (hereinafter Dennis) in view of Greiner, US Patent Application Publication 2008/0127122 (hereinafter Greiner).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 17, Dennis discloses a computer program product comprising: a set of one or more computer-readable storage media; and program instructions, collectively stored in the set of one or more computer-readable storage media, for causing at least one computing device to perform computer operations including: executing an instruction to perform an action defined by the instruction, the instruction including a control mode indicator [col. 15, lines 27-30; an instruction includes a mode field], the control mode indicator being set by a program that forms the instruction [col. 22, lines 3-45; a compiler is used in the creation of the program], and wherein the executing the instruction includes: checking the control mode indicator; re-defining, based on the control mode indicator being a selected value indicating enhanced execution mode, one or more instruction areas used by the instruction to provide other functionality of the instruction [Figures 6-15; col. 15, line 25 – col. 16, line 31; based on the value of the mode field, the fields of the instruction are defined differently], wherein at least one instruction area of the one or more instruction areas is defined as to be ignored prior to the re-defining, and wherein the re-defining re-defines the at least one instruction area to a usable instruction area [Figures 6-15; col. 15, line 25 – col. 16, line 31; depending on the mode field values, parts of the instruction may not be used]; and performing the action defined by the instruction using at least a portion of the other functionality provided by the re-defining the one or more instruction areas [Figures 6-15; col. 15, line 25 – col. 16, line 31; the instruction is executed according to the mode field].
Dennis fails to explicitly teach the control mode indicator being set to a selected value based on the program determining that a selected machine facility is installed and available for use.
Greiner teaches setting a control mode bit of an instruction based on a program determining that an ETF3-enhancement facility is installed and available for use (see e.g. para. [0030-40]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Dennis and Greiner to include the control mode indicator being set to a selected value based on the program determining that a selected machine facility is installed and available for use. This would have improved the reliability of the system by ensuring that underlying facilities were available to handle a specific mode of processing to prevent errors.
Regarding claims 13 and 18, Dennis in view of Greiner teaches or suggests the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the one or more instruction areas include one or more fields used by the instruction [Figures 6-15; col. 15, line 25 – col. 16, line 31; depending on the mode field values, parts of the instruction may not be used].
Regarding claim 3, Dennis in view of Greiner teaches or suggests the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the one or more instruction areas include one or more fields used by the instruction [Figures 6-15; col. 15, line 25 – col. 16, line 31; the instruction includes fields that are defined based on the mode field].
Regarding claims 4, 14, and 19, Dennis in view of Greiner teaches or suggests the computer program product of claim 3, wherein the re-defining the one or more instruction areas includes changing one or more ignored bits of the one or more fields of the instruction to one or more usable bits [Figures 6-15; col. 15, line 25 – col. 16, line 31; depending on the mode field values, parts of the instruction may or may not be used].
Regarding claims 5 and 26, Dennis in view of Greiner teaches or suggests the computer program product of claim 4, wherein the one or more usable bits include one or more assigned bits [Figures 6-15; col. 15, line 25 – col. 16, line 31; the bits are assigned to fields].
Regarding claim 6, Dennis in view of Greiner teaches or suggests the computer program product of claim 4, wherein the one or more usable bits include one or more reserved bits [Figures 6-15; col. 15, line 25 – col. 16, line 31; the bits are reserved as defined fields].
Regarding claims 7, 15, and 20, Dennis in view of Greiner teaches or suggests the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the one or more instruction areas include at least a portion of a storage area used by the instruction [Figures 6-15; col. 15, line 25 – col. 16, line 31; the bits are used to define a storage area used by the instruction].
Regarding claims 8, 27, and 29, Dennis in view of Greiner teaches or suggests the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the computer operations further comprise executing another instance of the instruction, wherein the executing the another instance of the instruction includes bypassing the re-defining, based on the control mode indicator being set to another selected value, and performing the action in which the use of the at least a portion of the other functionality is suppressed [Figures 6-15; col. 15, line 25 – col. 16, line 31; based on the value of the mode field, the fields of the instruction are defined differently].
Regarding claim 9, Dennis in view of Greiner teaches or suggests the computer program product of claim 8, wherein the executing the instruction and the executing the another instance of the instruction are performed by a same processor [Figures 6-15; col. 15, line 25 – col. 16, line 31; the same processor executes the instruction differently based on the value of the mode field].
Regarding claims 10, 16, and 21, Dennis in view of Greiner teaches or suggests the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the program comprises a compiler, and wherein the control mode indicator is set by a compiler at compile time [Figures 6-15; col. 15, line 25 – col. 16, line 31; the mode bits are part of the instruction that is part of a program that is stored in memory and executed; Col. 22, lines 3-45; a compiler is used in the creation of the program].
Regarding claims 11, 28, and 30, Dennis in view of Greiner teaches or suggests the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the control mode indicator is included in a text field of the instruction [Figures 6-15; col. 15, line 25 – col. 16, line 31; the instruction includes a mode field].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended language of “the control mode indicator being set to a selected value based on the program determining that a selected machine facility is installed and available for use” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Greiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M LINDLOF whose telephone number is (571)270-1024. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tue 8:30-5:00.
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 5712703995. 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.
/JOHN M LINDLOF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights