DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This Action is in response to communications filed 04/28/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 11, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
The Examiner notes the current action does not include prior art rejections over the current presentation of the claims 1-20. The cited relevant prior art references made of record below are considered as pertinent to the claims and disclosed details provided in the Specification.
The claims are subject to the rejections provided herein which must be addressed accordingly.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 02/12/2026 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Response to Amendment
In the Remarks filed 04/28/2026, Applicant has amended:
The language of claims 6 and 16 to address the objections previously indicated regarding the clarity of the limitations based on the limitation grammar. The Examiner therefore withdraws the corresponding objection made in the Office action dated 01/28/2026.
The language of claim 3 to address the previously identified antecedent basis issue regarding the term “virtual memory area descriptor”. The Examiner therefore withdraws the corresponding 112(b) rejection made in the Office action dated 01/28/2026.
Response to Arguments
In Remarks filed on 04/28/2026, Applicant substantially argues:
On Page 1, the recitation of “memory access pattern ID”, “memory access pattern type”, and “virtual memory area descriptor” in claim 4 are distinguished from prior recitations of the terms and do not result in subsequent antecedent basis issues from any following limitations and therefore the article “a” is appropriate. Applicant’s arguments filed have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive regarding the recitation of “memory access pattern ID” and “memory access pattern type” and therefore the Examiner withdraws the rejections regarding these aspects; however, the rejection remains regarding the recitation of “virtual memory area descriptor”. The rejection herein is further clarified.
On Page 1, the recitation of “code location” in claim 5 does not result in indefiniteness with respect to the recitation of “code area” elsewhere as the terms refer to distinguished elements. Applicant’s arguments filed have been fully considered but are not found to be persuasive. The Applicant merely provides a statement as to the distinguished aspect of the terms but does not provide substantiated evidence as supported by the originally filed Specification. Furthermore, the Applicant expressly admits “’area’ and ‘location,’ while having related meanings in some contexts, do not necessarily mean the same thing.” The Examiner reminds Applicant of MPEP § 2145(I) “Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of applicant statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.” The corresponding rejection regarding the clarity of the limitation is maintained herein.
On Page 2, claim 11 is amended to recite additional limitations that the method is performed by an apparatus comprising a processor and memory storing instructions executed by the processor which improve operation of the memory and therefore the claims are not directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. Additionally, the amended claim language addresses the previously identified issue regarding the limitation clarity of managing the memory area. Applicant’s arguments filed have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. The Examiner therefore withdraws the corresponding 101 rejections and 112(b) rejections over claims 11-14 made in the Office action dated 01/28/2026.
On Pages 3-5, the prior art references of record Sen and Canepa fail to disclose the amended limitations of claims 1, 11, and 15 regarding the further classification of the memory access patterns and assignment of an identifier according to the classification and management of the disaggregated memory according to the identifier. Applicant’s arguments filed have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. The Examiner therefore withdraws the corresponding 102 and 103 rejections made in the Office action dated 01/28/2026.
The Examiner notes the newly introduced 112(b) rejections made herein.
All arguments by the applicant are believed to be covered in the body of the office action; thus, this action constitutes a complete response to the issues raised in the remarks dated April 28, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 is amended to recite “wherein a memory access pattern identifier (ID) …” Herein the amended limitation indicates the full term “identifier” for the shorthand “ID”; however, the claim previously recites in the preamble “a memory access pattern ID” without the term. The Examiner suggests amending the preamble language with the full term alongside the shorthand and subsequent recitations to use either the full term or shorthand for consistency and clarity purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the memory access pattern is classified based on at least one of…” The claim previously recites “recognize a pattern of memory access to a disaggregated memory” and “recognize memory access patterns for respective memory areas … when the memory access pattern is recognized”. In this manner, the newly amended language of classifying the memory access pattern is unclear as pertaining to either the recognized pattern of memory access to the disaggregated memory or the respective memory areas. This is further complicated that the “first” recognize limitation refers to the “pattern of memory access” as “the recognized memory access pattern”. The language should be addressed to clearly identify which limitations are appropriately referenced by subsequent terms. Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and do not resolve the above identified issue.
Claim 15 recites the same issue as identified as claim 1 above. Respective dependent claims 16-20 do not resolve the issue.
Claim 4 recites “a virtual memory area descriptor”. Claim 2, from which claim 4 depends, recites “a virtual memory area descriptor” and therefore the recitations in claim 4 lacks proper antecedent basis with respect to claim 2. Specifically, the issue is caused by the language in claim 2 as referring to the virtual memory area descriptor as “newly created as a certain function is called” and the limitation in claim 4 refers to “a virtual memory area descriptor that is duplicated together with the process” but it is unclear as to whether this descriptor may be the same one as recited in claim 2. The terms are not properly distinguished or sufficiently indicated as being connected via antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites “at an identical code location”. Claim 3 distinctly recites “a memory area corresponding to one of a code area”. The lack of consistency of language between claims raises a clarity issue regarding if the “code location” in claim 5 is referring to the similar element as the “code area” in claim 3. It is suggested to amend the language in at least one of the claims to improve the clarity of the limitations or to provide explicit evidence as supported by the Specification wherein there is sufficient detail to clearly distinguish the terms.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the memory access pattern is classified”. Herein the term “memory access pattern” lacks antecedent basis as there is no prior recitation of the term in the claim. Furthermore, the amended language recites “based on at least one of a type of a memory area, whether a memory area is allocated to a child process, …” Herein, the recitations “memory area” lack proper antecedent basis to the first recitation of “analyzing a memory area” as it is unclear if the limitation is referring to the analyzed memory area or a distinctly separate memory area.
Additionally, claim 12 recites “a memory area” and is subject to the similar antecedent basis issue affecting the clarity of the limitation. The Examiner suggests amending claim 12 to clearly indicate the relationship of the assigned memory access pattern ID and type to the analyzed memory area as “to a virtual memory area descriptor for the memory area corresponding to one of a code area or a stack area.”
Dependent claims 12-14 do not resolve the issue of claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Calciu et al. (US 2020/0034294) – Paragraphs [0039-40] wherein prefetching to address page faults is discussed.
Marolia et al. (US 2021/0004338) – Paragraph [0024-29] wherein managing access patterns between local and remote memory is discussed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER J YOON whose telephone number is (408)918-7629. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-3pm ET. The examiner’s email is alexander.yoon2@uspto.gov.
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, Jared Rutz can be reached on 571-272-5535. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER YOON/
Examiner, Art Unit 2135
/JARED I RUTZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2135
Prosecution Insights