DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 are present for examination.
Claims 1 and 18-19 have been amended.
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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant describes, in pages 20-21, of the Specification a computer-readable code, disposed in a computer-readable medium, that can be used at one or more stages of a semiconductor device and fabrication process. However, there are no steps described or claimed about how the fabrication of the apparatus occurs, and only sets forth what the apparatus is made of and what does. In pages 20-21, of the Specification, Applicant only sets forth the generic methods of fabricating, and not particular steps for fabricating the apparatus claimed. As such, the claim limitation “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-readable code for fabrication of an apparatus, comprising…” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-readable code for fabrication of an apparatus, comprising…”. It is not clear what “comprising” the structural elements of the body of the claim is directed to: the “computer-readable medium” or the “apparatus”. If the “computer-readable medium” is comprising the elements of the claim, then it is not clear how a medium can contain the structural elements set forth in the claim (e.g. set associative cache, cache replacement control circuitry).
If the “comprising” refers to the “apparatus”, then the claim is actually directed to the “computer-readable medium” storing code “for fabrication of an apparatus”, and the claim is unclear because the limitation does not include instructions/code/steps for how the apparatus is “fabricated”.
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because:
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-readable code for fabrication of an apparatus, comprising…”. The claims limitations do not set forth any instructions on how a computer system would perform this fabrication, and under one interpretation the claim sets forth non-functional descriptive material embodied on a computer-readable medium. As the claim is only directed to non-functional descriptive material in one interpretation, it does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
The specification, in pages 20-21, only gives a very broad outline of types of programs or tactics to fabricate an apparatus, but does not describe particular details on how the particular apparatus of the present invention would be fabricated using any of the program or tactics mentioned.
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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticpated by Bolbenes et al. (US11,461,247).
With respect to claim 18: If the “comprising” in interpreted as referring to the “apparatus”, then the claim is interpreted as being directed to the “computer-readable medium storing code for fabrication of an apparatus”. Bolbenes et al. teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-readable code for fabrication of an apparatus (see claim 20, lines 1-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 and 19 are allowed.
Claim 18 would be allowable if 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No prior art or combination of prior art teaches or suggest in response to identifying a plurality of highest victim priority cache entries having equal cache replacement selection values indicative of equal highest priority to be selected as the victim cache entry, the cache replacement control circuitry is configured to select the victim cache entry from the plurality of highest victim priority cache entries based on a set-specific selection criterion, the set-specific selection criterion favors selection of a victim cache entry belonging to a preferred way for the given set, and the preferred way differs between at least two sets of the set associative cache as recited in claims 1 and 18-19.
Bolbenes et al. (US 2017/0337133) teaches having identified a subset comprising four cache entries which are potential victims in accordance with the primary eviction policy, a selection may then be performed to select among this subset of potential victims the actual victim to be used. This final selection is at least partially guided by content data read from the potential victims (see paragraph 26-27).
However, Bolbenes et al. does not teach in response to identifying a plurality of highest victim priority cache entries having equal cache replacement selection values indicative of equal highest priority to be selected as the victim cache entry, the cache replacement control circuitry is configured to select the victim cache entry from the plurality of highest victim priority cache entries based on a set-specific selection criterion, the set-specific selection criterion favors selection of a victim cache entry belonging to a preferred way for the given set, and the preferred way differs between at least two sets of the set associative cache.
Ozer et al. (US2008/0229052) teaches wherein when a fetch or access request is issued to the cache, a portion of the address specified in that request will identify the relevant set within the cache. If on a lookup in that set of the cache, no hit is detected, a linefill procedure will be invoked, and accordingly the priority driven random replacement mechanism will select a victim cache line. In this event, the set information will be routed via the qualifying AND gate 510 (qualified by the miss signal) to identify the relevant PBV register in the array 500 to form the eight-bit selected PBV entry 520. Thereafter, the selected PBV entry 520 operates in the same way as the PBV 465 of FIG. 5, and produces control data for the multiplexer 470 to enable it to select one of the candidate cache lines as the victim cache line, that victim cache line then being identified by an eight-bit way value identifying the particular way of the set whose cache line is to be evicted (see paragraph 78).
However, Ozer et al. does not teach in response to identifying a plurality of highest victim priority cache entries having equal cache replacement selection values indicative of equal highest priority to be selected as the victim cache entry, the cache replacement control circuitry is configured to select the victim cache entry from the plurality of highest victim priority cache entries based on a set-specific selection criterion, the set-specific selection criterion favors selection of a victim cache entry belonging to a preferred way for the given set, and the preferred way differs between at least two sets of the set associative cache.
Fishwik et al. (US2017/0148130) teaches hen an eviction from the parameter cache is required, a parameter from the parameter block with the lowest counter is chosen for eviction. If multiple parameters are present in the parameter cache 118 with the same count value, then a conventional eviction policy (such as LRU) may be used to determine which of those parameters is to be evicted (see paragraph 77).
However, Fishwik et al. does not teach in response to identifying a plurality of highest victim priority cache entries having equal cache replacement selection values indicative of equal highest priority to be selected as the victim cache entry, the cache replacement control circuitry is configured to select the victim cache entry from the plurality of highest victim priority cache entries based on a set-specific selection criterion, the set-specific selection criterion favors selection of a victim cache entry belonging to a preferred way for the given set, and the preferred way differs between at least two sets of the set associative cache.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 09/30/2025, with respect to rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 09/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bolbenes et al. (US11,461,247).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARACELIS RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1038. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00am-7:30pm.
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, Reginald G. Bragdon can be reached on (571)272-4204. 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.
/ARACELIS RUIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2139