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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action has been issued in response amendments filed 05 May 2026.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 12 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 should be amended to “an address translation module configured to, in response to receiving a request from a processor, identify a first primary page table entry and a location of the first primary page table entry within the first page table, and consecutive to identifying the first primary page table entry, calculate a location of a corresponding secondary page table entry in the second page table based on the location of the first primary page table entry in said first page table”. Use of semi-colon appears off as “in response to receiving a request from a processor” is supposed to be separated so identification of first primary page table is configured by translation module. Also, sequence of steps appears to be broken up due to use of semi-colon, and “address translation module configured to” is also an incomplete step due to use of semi-colon.
Claim 2 should be amended to “wherein a respective location of each secondary page table entry has a pre-determined relationship with a respective location of the respective primary page table entry”. This is to correct lack on antecedence basis. Note that claim 1 recites “a respective primary page table entry”.
Claim 14 is the computer implemented method claim corresponding to system claim 2, and is objected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claims, dependent upon above identified claims, are also objected on the same grounds as said above identified claims.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitations are as follows.
“an address translation module configured to, in response to receiving a request from a processor, identify a first primary page table entry and consecutive to identifying the first primary page table entry, calculate a location of a corresponding secondary page table entry in the second page table based on the location of the first primary page table entry in said first page table” in claim 1
“wherein the address translation module is further configured to, in response to receiving the request from the processor, retrieve the first primary page table entry and the corresponding secondary page table entry, optionally wherein the address translation module further copies the first primary page table entry and the corresponding secondary page table entry retrieved into a cache” in claim 3
“wherein the address translation module on receiving a request, that is a virtual address, is configured to: search, in the cache, for valid address translation from the virtual address to a physical address; provide the physical address to the processor, on identifying the valid address translation for the virtual address in the cache; and invoke a cache miss, in the absence of the valid address translation in the cache, wherein the invoking of the cache miss is handled by the address translation module by using a page table walker or by raising a software exception handler” in claim 5
“wherein the address translation module walks through the first page table to identify one of the primary page table entries comprising a mapping of a physical address to the virtual address, on the occurrence of the cache miss” in claim 6
“A computer implemented method performed by an address translation unit in a computer system” and “the computer implemented method comprising: receiving a request from a processor; identify a first primary page table entry and a location of the first primary page table entry within the first page table; and consecutively calculating a location of a corresponding secondary page table entry in the second page table based on the location of the first primary page table entry” in claim 13
“wherein the method further comprises, on receiving the request from the processor, retrieving the first primary page table entry and the corresponding secondary page table entry” in claim 15
“wherein the method further comprises storing a plurality of address translations, each from a virtual memory address to a physical memory address in a cache and wherein the method further comprises, on receiving the request from the processor, where the request is a virtual address: searching, in the cache, for valid address translation from the virtual address to a physical address; providing the physical address to the processor, on identifying the valid address translation for the virtual address in the cache; and invoking a cache miss, in an absence of the valid address translation in the cache” in claim 16
“wherein the method comprising walking through the first page table to identify one of the primary page table entries comprising a mapping of a physical address to the virtual address, on the occurrence of the cache miss” in claim 17
“wherein the method further comprises consecutively identifying the corresponding secondary page table entry to identify at least one further auxiliary information” in claim 18
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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.
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, 5 – 6, 13 and 16 – 18 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.
As noted supra, claims 1, 5 – 6, 13 and 16 – 18 recite limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. In this instance, corresponding structure (of address translation module) refers to computer implemented means-plus function (see spec ¶[87] address translation module as software and spec ¶[138] software executed by processor). The claimed functions (outlined below), corresponding to said address translation module, are specialized computer functions that would require algorithms to be disclosed, in addition to the physical structure (in this instance processor) that would perform the algorithms. However, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the algorithms that are used to perform the claimed functions. This renders the claims unclear as to the algorithms that are being referred to in the instant specification. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the limitation to refer to MMU implementing the claimed function.
“identify a first primary page table entry and a location of the first primary page table entry within the first page table” in claim 1
“search, in the cache, for valid address translation from the virtual address to a physical address; provide the physical address to the processor, on identifying the valid address translation for the virtual address in the cache; and invoke a cache miss, in the absence of the valid address translation in the cache, wherein the invoking of the cache miss is handled by the address translation module by using a page table walker or by raising a software exception handler” in claim 5
“identify one of the primary page table entries comprising a mapping of a physical address to the virtual address, on the occurrence of the cache miss” in claim 6
“identifying a first primary page table entry and a location of the first primary page table entry within the first page table” in claim 13
“searching, in the cache, for valid address translation from the virtual address to a physical address; providing the physical address to the processor, on identifying the valid address translation for the virtual address in the cache; and invoking a cache miss, in the absence of the valid address translation in the cache” in claim 16
“identify one of the primary page table entries comprising a mapping of a physical address to the virtual address, on the occurrence of the cache miss” in claim 17
“consecutively identifying the corresponding secondary page table entry to identify at least one further auxiliary information” in claim 18
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.
Claims 1, 5 – 6, 13 and 16 – 18 are 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.
Regarding claims 1, 5 – 6, 13 and 16 – 18, as described in 112(b) supra with respect to corresponding structure in the specification, the specification does not provide sufficient disclosure as to algorithms used to perform the claim functions. Therefore, the claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) written description as failing to provide sufficient disclosure such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably conclude that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 13 and 19 have been indicated as allowable over prior art in Office Action mailed 05 February 2026.
Claims, dependent upon independent claims 1, 13 or 19, are also allowable over prior art for the same reasons as said independent claims.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s amendments address objections in Office Action mailed 05 February 2026. Therefore, said objections are hereby withdrawn.
Terminal disclaimer, filed 05 May 2026, also address double patenting rejection in said Office Action. Therefore, said double patenting rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks, with respect to 112(a)/(b) rejection for insufficient structure of 112(f) interpretation, have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant alleges that Fig. 7 provides sufficient structure (or flow chart) to transform general purpose processor to special purpose processor. In order to provide sufficient structure to transform said general purpose processor to said special purpose processor, the instant specification (or figures) would need to disclose, via algorithm or flow chart, how said claimed functions (rejected under said 112(a)/(b)) are performed (see MPEP 2181(II)(B)). However, Fig. 7 does not disclose how said claimed functions are performed. For instance, referring to limitation “search, in the cache, for valid address translation from the virtual address to a physical address”, while Fig. 7 discloses said limitation, Fig. 7 does not disclose how said limitation is performed. In other words, Fig. 7 does not disclose how said cache is searched for said valid address translation from said virtual address to said physical address. In order to provide sufficient structure, a flow chart would need to show how said cache is searched (e.g. searching by comparing virtual address to tag in cache). Similar reasoning applies to remaining limitations in said claimed functions rejected under said 112(a)/(b).
Additional Remarks
In order to overcome §112(a) and §112(b) rejections due to 112(f) interpretation, Examiner suggests replacing “address translation module” with “memory management unit” (MMU) (see spec Fig. 1). MMU is a known term in the art to refer to memory controller and thus would have sufficient structure to avoid invoking 112(f).
Conclusion
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 CHIE YEW whose telephone number is (571)270-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays.
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 Bragdon can be reached at (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.
/CHIE YEW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2139
Prosecution Insights