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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/21/2025 and 10/8/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 limitation(s) is/are: the “page probing engine” and “page walker” in claims 21-22, 28 and 34. Support in the specification, including paragraphs [00370]-[00375] and Fig. 30, recites the functions performed by said probing engine and page walker, but lack any teaching regarding a corresponding structure or algorithm to perform the functions. Fig. 30 merely shows the probing engine and page walker existing within a “black box”.
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.
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 21-22, 28 and 34 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 limitations “probing engine” and “page walker” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraphs [00370]-[00375] and Fig. 30 of the specification recite the functions performed by said probing engine and page walker, but lack any teaching regarding a corresponding structure or algorithm to perform the functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 21-22, 28 and 34 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. Claims 21-22, 28 and 34 recite a “probing engine” and a “page walker”. As discussed above, the claims are 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. Support in the specification, including paragraphs [00370]-[00375] and Fig. 30, recites the functions performed by said probing engine and page walker, but lack any teaching regarding a corresponding structure or algorithm to perform the functions. Fig. 30 merely shows the probing engine and page walker existing within a “black box”. A statement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function fails to provide adequate written description.
Claims 21-22, 28 and 34 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 21-22, 28 and 34 recite a “probing engine” and a “page walker”. As discussed above, the claims are 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. Support in the specification, including paragraphs [00370]-[00375] and Fig. 30, recites the functions performed by said probing engine and page walker, but lack any teaching regarding a corresponding structure or algorithm to perform the functions. Fig. 30 merely shows the probing engine and page walker existing within a “black box”. Therefore, the disclosure does not contain sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention in compliance with the enablement requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 20-22, 24, 26-28, 30, 32-34, 36 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Desai (US 2014/0108766).
Regarding claim 20, Desai discloses an apparatus comprising: a plurality of processors, including a graphics processing unit (GPU) [see Fig. 1; CPU 140 & GPU 125]; and a memory for storage of data, including data for processing of pages by the GPU [see paragraph 25 & Fig. 1, GPU cache 130 & system memory 155]; and wherein, upon the GPU accessing a first page and receiving a page fault indicating that the first page is not present in page translation entries [see paragraph 31; request from processor misses in translation buffer (TLB)], the plurality of processors are to perform page translation including:
identifying a set of sequential pages following the first page [see paragraph 31; virtual address translation for next sequential page identified], probing the set of sequential pages to identify one or more sequential pages that are not present in the page translation entries [see paragraphs 32-33 & 36; TLB logic and table walk unit performs an address lookup for the sequential page. The sequential page translation is moved from the TLB prefetch buffer to the TLB upon a subsequent hit in the prefetch buffer (meaning the TLB does not contain that particular translation], and requesting one or more page translations for the one or more sequential pages [see paragraph 31; address lookup request for the sequential page is sent].
Regarding claim 21, Desai discloses the apparatus of claim 20, further comprising: a page probing engine, the page probing engine including a page walker to evaluate page translations [see paragraph 32; translation circuitry includes TLB logic (probing engine) comprising a table walk unit (page walker)].
Regarding claim 22, Desai discloses the apparatus of claim 21, wherein performing page translation probing the set of sequential pages utilizing the page walker to identify the one or more sequential pages that are not present in the page translation entries [see paragraphs 32-33 & 36; TLB logic and table walk unit performs an address lookup for the sequential page. The sequential page translation is moved from the TLB prefetch buffer to the TLB upon a subsequent hit in the prefetch buffer (meaning the TLB does not contain that particular translation].
Regarding claim 24, Desai discloses the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the page translation entries indicate translation of pages into virtual address space [see paragraph 30; TLB stores set of virtual to physical address translations].
Regarding claim 26, Desai discloses the apparatus of claim 20, wherein requesting the one or more page translations includes requesting the one or more translations prior to needing the one or more sequential pages in processing [see paragraph 31; sequential address is fetched speculatively based on locality of references pattern].
Claims 27-28, 30, 32-34, 36 and 38 recite the same limitations as claims 20-22, 24 and 26 and are rejected using the same citations and interpretations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 23, 29 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai in view of Lee et al. (US 2008/0276066).
Regarding claim 23, Desai discloses the method of claim 20 as discussed above, including prefetching a plurality of pages discloses [see paragraph 32].
Desai does not expressly disclose requesting translation of multiple pages in parallel.
Lee discloses a virtual memory translation system in which a plurality of virtual address translation pre-fetches may be performed at the same time (parallel) [see paragraphs 26 & 32].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the parallel pre-fetches of Lee in the system of Desai.
The motivation for doing so would have been that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (operations performed in parallel occur faster than those performed serially) [see MPEP 2143].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee with Desai for the benefits listed above, to obtain the invention as specified in claims 23, 29 and 35.
Claims 29 and 35 recite the same limitations as claim 23 and are rejected using the same citations and interpretations.
Claims 25, 31 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai in view of Wang et al. (US 2011/0010521).
Regarding claim 25, Desai discloses the method of claim 20 as discussed above.
Desai does not expressly disclose wherein probing the set of sequential pages includes: identifying any sequential pages of the set of sequential pages that are needed in processing; and requesting page translation of the sequential pages that are identified as being needed in processing.
Wang discloses a TLB prefetching system in which prefetching can be considered a passive prefetch or an active prefetch. An active prefetch utilizes a history table to detect an access pattern in order to predict that that an address translation will be needed. The active prefetching of Wang is analogous to the claimed limitations regarding identifying any pages of the set of pages that are needed in processing [see paragraphs 38-39].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the active prefetching of Wang in the system of Desai.
The motivation for doing so would have been accurately predict an address translation is needed [see Wang, paragraph 39].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wang with Desai for the benefits listed above, to obtain the invention as specified in claims 25, 31 and 37.
Claims 31 and 37 recite the same limitations as claim 25 and are rejected using the same citations and interpretations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Liu (US 5,282,274) – Generally teacher performing a translation of multiple virtual pages upon a TLB miss.
Isloorkar (US 2014/0156930) & Podaima (US 2016/0350225) – Generally teach address translation system capable of performing a plurality of pre-fetches in parallel.
Hwang (US 2018/0314644) – Generally teaches fetching a plurality of consecutive page table entries upon a TLB miss.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN BERTRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5MNT.
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, Arpan Savla can be reached at 571-272-1077. 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.
/RYAN BERTRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137