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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received on 03 December 2024 for application number 18/966,363. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Oath/Declaration, Abstract, Specification, Drawings, and Claims.
Claims 1 – 13 are presented for examination.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on the application filed on 12 December 2023 (KR10-2023-0179295).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03 December 2024 was filed on the mailing date of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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: “the system comprising: a training data generation unit for generating training data by using a reuse distance; and a cache structure design unit configured to design a cache structure for an application by using an artificial intelligence model trained based on the training data, where in the training data generation unit comprises: a first module for generating the reuse profile; and a second module for setting a first selection reuse distance based on the reuse profile, setting a first load index and a first real reuse distance based on the first selection reuse distance, modifying the reuse profile according to setting the first real reuse distance, and setting a second selection reuse distance based on the modified reuse profile” for claim 13.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “setting a reuse profile; setting a first selection reuse distance based on the reuse profile; setting a first load index and a first real reuse distance based on the first selection reuse distance; modifying the reuse profile according to setting the first real reuse distance”. It is unclear how the reuse profile is modified based on setting the first real reuse distance when the first real reuse distance was set based on the original unmodified reuse profile. It is unclear as to the what change causes the modification to come about for the reuse profile when the reuse profile sets the first real reuse distance. Claims 12 and 13 recite similar language and are rejected with like reasoning. Claims 2 – 11 depend from claim 1 and are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 2 recites in the first limitation “setting the number of reuse distances and a minimum reuse distance;” There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the number of reuse distances” because “a number of reuse distances” does not appear prior in the claim nor claim 1 from which it depends. Claim 4 recites similar language in the first limitation and is rejected with like reasoning. Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and is rejected due to its dependency.
Claim 5 recites in the second to last limitation “setting a default value as the first real reuse distance when the first selection reuse distance has never been used”. The use of “when” for a method claim is a contingent limitation. Examiner suggests amending “when” to something like “in response to determining” to overcome the rejection. Claim 8 (last limitation), claim 9 (second to last limitation), and claim 10 (second limitation) recite similar language and are rejected with like reasoning.
Claim 8 recites in the second limitation “determining whether the number of non-duplicated numerical values from the second load index…” There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the number of non-duplicated numerical values” as “a number of non-duplicated numerical values” does not previously appear in the claim language or other claims in the dependency chain. Claim 9 (second limitation) and claim 10 (last limitation) both recite similar language and are rejected with like reasoning.
Claim 11 recites in the first limitation “the number of uses of the first real reuse distance”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the number of uses of the first real reuse distance” as “a number of uses of the first real reuse distance” does not previously appear in the claim language or in independent claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recite steps “for generating training data for a cache memory design performed by at least one processor: setting a reuse profile; setting a first selection reuse distance based on the reuse profile; setting a first load index and a first real reuse distance based on the first selection reuse distance; modifying the reuse profile according to setting the first real reuse distance; and setting a second selection reuse distance based on the modified reuse profile” that can be done mentally, and does not appear to have anything significantly more than what can be done by mental processing. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because setting numbers and values and modifying the numbers and values from setting previous numbers and value at a high level could practically be performed in the human mind. Claims 2 – 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they additionally claim more steps for setting numbers and values with some analysis being performed that again can be considered to be performed as a mental process, and is not limited to improving the functioning of a computer. Claims 12 and 13 recite similar language as claim 1 with the addition of generic computing components, and are rejected with like reasoning.
Conclusion
STATUS OF CLAIMS IN THE APPLICATION
CLAIMS REJECTED IN THE APPLICATION
Per the instant office action, claims 1 – 13 have received a first action on the merits and
are subject of a first action non-final. Claim 1 – 13 are rejected under a 112 rejection and 101 rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s)
under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: for
independent claims 1, 12, and 13 the prior art of record, neither anticipates, nor renders obvious
setting a reuse profile for the generation of training data, where a first selection reuse distance is set based on the reuse profile, then a first load index and a first real reuse distance is set based on the first selection reuse distance, and the reuse profile is modified based on setting the first real reuse distance. The prior art teaches generating training data and setting a reuse distance based on a reuse, however it does not teach the setting of a selection reuse distance is based on a reuse profile, nor does it teach setting a reuse profile or setting a first load index and a first real reuse distance based on the first selection reuse distance that was previously set, and modifying the reuse profile initially set based on setting the first real reuse distance. The prior art also teaches modifying a reuse distance, however it does not teach modifying a reuse profile based on setting a first real reuse distance, nor does it teach the rest of the specific claim limitations stated above. Claims 2 – 11 depend from claim 1 and would be allowable for at least the same reasoning as claim 1.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Subramanian et al., US Pub. No. 2019/0361808 A1 – teaches [“Notably, the present techniques further propose that the neural network is trained using training data resulting from a cycle-accurate simulation of at least a portion of a data processing system comprising the cache configuration”] [para. 0018] [“By providing the reuse distance parameter a more accurate cache performance estimation is supported.”] [para. 0024] [“a reuse distance parameter 408 provides an indication of the rate of reuse (re-access) of data items accessed by instructions in the instruction sequence.”] [para. 0043]
Vishnu et al., US Pub. No. 2020/0151510 A1 – teaches [“Additionally, in some embodiments, the GPU 206 also adjusts the reuse distance (e.g., changing the number of mini-batches processed for training the neural network before reuse).”] [para. 0038]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD WADDY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5156. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-5pm.
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 at (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 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.
/EW/Examiner, Art Unit 2135 /JARED I RUTZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2135