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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 28, 2026, has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action and presented for examination. Claims 1, 6, 10-14, 17-18, and 20 are newly amended by the RCE received February 23, 2026.
The amended abstract appears to contain language that should have been underlined (e.g., “A” in line 1; “may determine” in line 2; “may prefetch” in line 3; “of the prefetcher may” in line 4). In addition, for example, in claim 20, line 1, “further comprising” is underlined although this language was present in the previous set of claims. Examiner recommends that future amendments be made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121 for clarity and to preclude a potential notice of non-compliance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In the abstract, line 1, a comma should be added after “cores”.
The amendment filed October 16, 2025, is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which, in context, is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: a) “e.g., from the RT 240,” in amended paragraph [0066].
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In FIG. 2 as amended on January 28, 2026, reference characters 200 and 202 appear to be directed to a same element.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 1, line 20, “the first address and first data” should be “the first address and the first data” for antecedent basis clarity. (Also see claim 18, line 19, which uses the latter language.)
Claims 2-17 are objected to for failing to alleviate the objection of claim 1 above.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the training logic structure comprises the PTH, the stride fetcher, the DRT, the ADT, and the RT” in lines 8-9. Claim 11, upon which claim 12 is dependent, recites the limitation “wherein the training logic structure comprises the PTH, the stride fetcher, the DRT, the ADT, and the RT” in lines 11-12. Therefore, it is unclear as to whether the aforementioned limitation of claim 12 is intended to further limit the aforementioned limitation of claim 11 in any manner.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the training logic structure comprises the PTH, the stride fetcher, the DRT, the ADT, and the RT” in lines 10-11. Claim 11, upon which claim 13 is dependent, recites the limitation “wherein the training logic structure comprises the PTH, the stride fetcher, the DRT, the ADT, and the RT” in lines 11-12. Therefore, it is unclear as to whether the aforementioned limitation of claim 13 is intended to further limit the aforementioned limitation of claim 11 in any manner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: 1) “prefetch logic structure configured to prefetch one or more data for the producer-consumer pair when the prefetch confidence associated with the producer-consumer pair is at or above a minimum prefetch confidence threshold” in claim 4. Examiner notes that “training logic structure …” in claims 11, 12, and 13 are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) recites specific structure to perform the recited function (i.e., “the PTH, the stride fetcher, the DRT, the ADT, and the RT”).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The limitation of “1)” above is being construed to cover prefetch queue 250 and prefetch outstanding buffer 260, in view of instant paragraphs [0036] and [0037].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 1 recites the limitation “memory access information corresponding to two or more PCs of the plurality of PCs” in lines 4-5. However, it is indefinite as to whether a same instance of memory access information corresponds to two or more PCs of the plurality of PCs, or whether multiple instances of memory access information respectively correspond to two or more PCs of the plurality of PCs. Note that the limitation “the memory access information corresponding to the two or more PCs of the plurality of PCs” is recited in claim 1, lines 6-7.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the producer-consumer pair including a producer PC and a consumer PC of a data dependent access (DDA)” in lines 7-9. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, the limitation uses the open-ended language “including”; however, it is unclear as to how a “pair” in the context of the instant invention can include an additional element beyond the recited producer PC and consumer PC.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a PC whose corresponding memory access information is stored in the ADT” in line 12. However, this limitation has insufficient antecedent basis, as, for example, “a PC” (which is not necessarily an earlier recited PC) was not previously recited to correspond to “memory access information”, whereas the “whose” language implies a PC that has already been recited to correspond to memory access information. For example, “a PC” (which is not necessarily an earlier recited PC) was not previously recited to correspond to memory access information that is stored in the ADT, whereas the “whose” language implies a PC that has already been recited to correspond to memory access information that is stored in the ADT.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the corresponding memory access information” in line 13. However, it is indefinite as to whether the antecedent basis for this limitation is the memory access information of the limitation “memory access information corresponding to…” in claim 1, lines 4-5, or “corresponding memory access information” in claim 1, line 12.
Claims 2-17 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 1 above.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the first address and the second address of the PC” in lines 1-2. However, it is indefinite as to whether the first address is a PC address, or some other address associated with the PC (e.g., a load address of an instruction that is located at a PC). Similarly, it is indefinite as to whether the second address is a PC address, or some other address associated with the PC (e.g., a load address of an instruction that is located at a PC).
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a potential producer’s PC’s data” in line 6. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is unclear as to whether the “PC’s data” is an address of a program counter, or some other data indirectly associated with the PC. For example, a PC of the potential producer, and data of a PC of the potential producer, has not been previously recited and therefore has insufficient antecedent basis. (Note that, like the “whose” language addressed above, the use of apostrophes implies previously recited limitations.)
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the ADT including the PC identifier, the first address, and the first data of the committed load instruction” in lines 9-10. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the PC identifier … of the committed load instruction” in lines 9-10. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite as to whether the “of the committed load instruction” language is or is not intended to apply to “the PC identifier” language. In the former case, the limitation does not appear to have antecedent basis.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the first address … of the committed load instruction” in lines 9-10. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite as to whether the “of the committed load instruction” language is or is not intended to apply to “the first address” language. In the former case, the limitation does not appear to have antecedent basis.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the first data of the committed load instruction” in lines 9-10. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the stride fetcher” in line 11. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Note that this limitation is also recited in claim 12, line 8, and claim 13, line 10.
Claims 12-13 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 11 above.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a training logic structure” in lines 1-2. However, it is indefinite as to whether this training logic structure is the same as, or different from, “a training logic structure” as recited in claim 11, line 2.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the training logic structure” in line 8. However, it is indefinite as to whether the antecedent basis for this limitation is “a training logic structure” in claim 11, line 2, or “a training logic structure” in claim 12, lines 1-2.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a training logic structure” in lines 1-2. However, it is indefinite as to whether this training logic structure is the same as, or different from, “a training logic structure” as recited in claim 11, line 2.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the training logic structure” in line 10. However, it is indefinite as to whether the antecedent basis for this limitation is “a training logic structure” in claim 11, line 2, or “a training logic structure” in claim 13, lines 1-2.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the prefetch confidence associated with the first producer-consumer pair” in lines 6-7. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the prefetch confidence of the first producer-consumer pair” in line 8. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “memory access information corresponding to two or more PCs of the plurality of PCs” in lines 3-4. However, it is indefinite as to whether a same instance of memory access information corresponds to two or more PCs of the plurality of PCs, or whether multiple instances of memory access information respectively correspond to two or more PCs of the plurality of PCs. Note that the limitation “the memory access information corresponding to the two or more PCs of the plurality of PCs” is recited in claim 18, lines 6-7.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the memory access information corresponding to the two or more PCs of the plurality of PCs” in lines 6-7. However, this limitation has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the producer-consumer pair including a producer PC and a consumer PC of a data dependent access (DDA)” in lines 7-8. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, the limitation uses the open-ended language “including”; however, it is unclear as to how a “pair” in the context of the instant invention can include an additional element beyond the recited producer PC and consumer PC.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a PC whose corresponding memory access information is stored in the ADT” in line 11. However, this limitation has insufficient antecedent basis, as, for example, “a PC” (which is not necessarily an earlier recited PC) was not previously recited to correspond to “memory access information”, whereas the “whose” language implies a PC that has already been recited to correspond to memory access information. For example, “a PC” (which is not necessarily an earlier recited PC) was not previously recited to correspond to memory access information that is stored in the ADT, whereas the “whose” language implies a PC that has already been recited to correspond to memory access information that is stored in the ADT.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the corresponding memory access information” in line 12. However, it is indefinite as to whether the antecedent basis for this limitation is the memory access information of the limitation “memory access information corresponding to…” in claim 18, line 3, or “corresponding memory access information” in claim 18, line 11.
Claims 19-20 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 18 above.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the first address and the second address of the PC” in lines 1-2. However, it is indefinite as to whether the first address is a PC address, or some other address associated with the PC (e.g., a load address of an instruction that is located at a PC). Similarly, it is indefinite as to whether the second address is a PC address, or some other address associated with the PC (e.g., a load address of an instruction that is located at a PC).
Claim 20 recites the limitation “data of a potential producer’s PC” in line 6. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is unclear as to whether the “data of a potential producer’s PC” is an address of a program counter, or some other data indirectly associated with the PC. For example, a PC of the potential producer has not been previously recited and therefore has insufficient antecedent basis. (Note that, like the “whose” language addressed above, the use of apostrophes implies previously recited limitations.).
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the ADT including the PC identifier, the first address, and the first data of the committed load instruction” in lines 9-10. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the PC identifier … of the committed load instruction” in lines 9-10. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite as to whether the “of the committed load instruction” language is or is not intended to apply to “the PC identifier” language. In the former case, the limitation does not appear to have antecedent basis.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the first address … of the committed load instruction” in lines 9-10. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite as to whether the “of the committed load instruction” language is or is not intended to apply to “the first address” language. In the former case, the limitation does not appear to have antecedent basis.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the first data of the committed load instruction” in lines 9-10. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant on page 8 argues: "The Specification stands objected to for informalities. FOA, pp.2-3. The specification is amended to address the issues raised. In particular: ... Applicant respectfully requests that the objections to the specification be withdrawn."
In view of the aforementioned amendments, the previously presented objections to the specification set forth in paragraphs 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 4e, 4f, and 5b of the office action dated October 30, 2025, are overcome. However, the previously presented objection to the specification set forth in paragraph 5a of the aforementioned office action appears to remain applicable.
Applicant across pages 8-9 argues: "The Drawings stand objected to for informalities. FOA, pp.4-5. The Drawings are amended to address the issues raised. In particular ... Applicant respectfully requests that the objections to the drawings be withdrawn."
In view of the aforementioned amendments, the previously presented objections to the drawings set forth in paragraphs 6g, 6i, 6j, 6k, 6l, and 6m of the office action dated October 30, 2025, are overcome. However, the previously presented objection to the drawings set forth in paragraph 6h of the aforementioned office action appears to remain applicable.
Applicant on page 9 argues: ‘The Examiner alleges that the "prefetch logic structure" in claims 4 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The Examiner also indicates that the § 112(f) interpretation also covers the prefetch queue 250 and the prefetch outstanding buffer (POB) 260, which are parts of the prefetch logic 265. Applicant notes that the prefetch logic 265, as well as the prefetch queue 250 and the POB 260, are parts of the domain-specific prefetcher hardware structure 200 (also referred to as the prefetcher 200). E.g., see [0021]. Also, the specification specifically states that prefetch queue 250 and the POB 260 are themselves hardware structures. E.g., see [0036].’
However, Examiner submits that the aforementioned portions of the specification do not preclude the relevant limitations from being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). For example, an element being described as hardware does not appear to preclude that element from being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Applicant on page 9 argues: ‘The Examiner also questions the feature "the producer-consumer pair comprising a producer PC and a consumer PC". Specifically, due to the open-ended language "comprising", the Examiner questions how a "pair" can comprise additional element beyond the recited producer PC and the consumer PC. The Examiner, without anything else, wishes to limit the language of the claim. The Specification is clear that there can be additional information associated with the pair. For example, there can be a prefetch confidence associated with the producer-consumer pair. E.g., see [0035], [0037], etc. Also, PC tuples may be identified. E.g., see [0044], [0048]. Nonetheless, to promote progress, claim is amended to recite "include" instead of "comprising". Applicant respectfully requests that the claims be correctly interpreted.’
However, Examiner submits that a prefetch confidence being associated with a producer-consumer pair does not mean that the producer-consumer pair includes the prefetch confidence. Examiner further submits that the concept of PC tuples being identified does not appear to preclude the rationale for the rejection. Examiner also notes that "include" is likewise open-ended language.
Applicant on page 10-11 argues: “Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for allegedly being indefinite. FOA, pp.6-22. Applicant respectfully disagrees. However, claims are amended for clarification purposes. In particular: ... Applicant respectfully requests that the § 112(b) rejections be withdrawn.”
Various previously pending rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims. However, other previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) remain applicable, and in various cases the amendments to the claims introduce additional indefinite subject matter; see the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH E VICARY whose telephone number is (571)270-1314. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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.
/KEITH E VICARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights