DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communication received on 5/13/2026. Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-18, 20-23 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Claim Language
Claims 8, 10, and 23 recite limitations which, as claimed, are conditionally executed without accounting for the possibility of the condition failing to trigger.
The limitations in the claims reciting execution of an action in response to or based on a condition are not positively recited in the claims, as the limitations, as claimed, are conditionally executed without accounting for the possibility of the condition failing to occur. The method may never be required to execute the condition because the claim(s) recite a temporal conditional precedent that may never be reached within the scope of the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation. The examiner recommends reciting, for limitations reliant upon a condition for execution, providing for a separate limitation reciting detection or determination of the condition. For instance, for claim 8, the examiner recommends providing a limitation providing for detecting/determining that a write value of a subsequent write request for the memory page matches the fixed value.
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *9 (PTAB, Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential) (holding “The Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the remaining method steps of the claim that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”); see also Ex parte Katz, Appeal No. 2010-006083, 2011 WL 514314, at *4-5 (BPAI Jan. 27, 2011).” Board Decision pages 5-6, emphasis in original.
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 3 and 10 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.
Claims 3 and 10 provide for a write operation having a write value that does not match the fixed value and further provide for setting contents of a physical page in the memory to a write value (second instance of ‘a write value’). Claims 1 and 8, on which claims 3 and 10 are respectively dependent upon, also recite an instance of ‘a write value’. Claims 3 and 10 are therefore unclear as to whether the second instance of ‘a write value’ is intended to correspond to the other instance of ‘a write value’ recited in claims 3 and 10 or whether it was intended to correspond to ‘a write value’ recited in claims 1 and 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claims 8-12, 14-17, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. (US 20250181515 A1) in view of Basu et al. (US 20170277634 A1).
As per claim 8,
8. A method, comprising: setting, by the MMU in a page table entry of a page table, a fixed page contents field to indicate the memory page contains the fixed value; returning, by the MMU, the fixed value without accessing a physical page in memory based on a subsequent read request for the memory page; and [Barnes teaches a CPU comprising processing circuitry providing memory requests and comprising a memory management unit (MMU) for controlling access to memory based on page table information (para. 27-28, 64, 66-68, 73, 76-77; figs 1-3 and associated paragraphs); Barnes teaches memory having page table structure from which the MMU may obtain page table information (para. 65, 73, 80); Barnes teaches that, responsive to a read request for a page, the MMU may determine based on the page table information that the page is associated with read-as-X property, where the MMU may then suppress any access to memory which would otherwise be issued and return a specified value X to the processing circuitry (para. 76-77, 84; fig. 4 and associated paragraphs), where the read-as-X property may be specified in a field, such as a permission field, of a page table entry for a given page (e.g. a permissions field) (para. 90)] maintaining, by the MMU, the fixed page contents field in the page table entry based on a write value of a subsequent write request for the memory page matching the fixed value. [Instant limitation is recited to be executed based on a condition (write value matching the fixed value) that may fail to trigger within the scope of the method claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation, where, if the condition never occurs, the claimed method may not be required to execute the limitation (please see the claim language section above)]
Barnes does not explicitly disclose, but Basu discloses:
receiving, by a memory management unit (MMU), a request to set a memory page to a fixed value; setting; [Barnes’s disclosure is not explicit with respect to the modification being performed by the MMU responsive to a command; Basu teaches a processor sending a command for a memory management unit to modify metadata bits of a page table entry, where the processor may receive requests from a program executing on the processor (para. 94; see para. 24, 27 on an operating system and instructions executing on a processor; see para. 4-5 on a program providing a request to a processor; see para. 47 indicating metadata includes permission bits)]
Barnes and Basu are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory access.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having knowledge of Barnes and Basu, to modify the disclosures by Barnes to include disclosures Basu since they both teach memory access, wherein Basu is directed towards improved speed and efficiency of page table modification (para. 25). Therefore, it would be applying a known technique (processor configured to execute and receive requests from a program, the processor providing a command for an MMU to modify metadata bit(s) of a page table) to a known device (system comprising a page table having a field that may be set to provide read-as-X function) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (system comprising a page table having fields including a permission field that may be set to provide read-as-X function, where a program executed on a processor of the system may provide for commands causing an MMU to modify the fields of the page table in order to provide for greater versatility in managing the page table). MPEP 2143
As per claim 9, Barnes in view of Basu teaches claim 8 as shown above and further teaches:
9. The method of claim 8, further comprising: setting, by the MMU in the page table entry of the page table, a present field to indicate the memory page is not present in physical memory; and setting, by the MMU in the page table entry of the page table, a dirty field to indicate the memory page has not been modified. [Basu teaches metadata in a page table entry including validity (present) value indicating whether the page is accessible or not and dirty indicator indicating whether a corresponding page has been modified or not (para. 46, 48; figs. 2-3 and associated paragraphs), where the validity value and the dirty indicator would necessarily be settable to indicate accessibility and modification as well as the non-accessibility and lack of modification (also see Barnes: para. 60, 77 providing no page has to be allocated for a page marked with read-as-X property)]
Barnes and Basu are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory access.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having knowledge of Barnes and Basu, to modify the disclosures by Barnes to include disclosures Basu since they both teach memory access, wherein Basu is directed towards improved speed and efficiency of page table modification (para. 25). Therefore, it would be applying a known technique (page table comprising information including accessibility and modification of a relevant page) to a known device (system comprising a page table indicating information including read behavior of a page table) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (system comprising a page table indicating information including read behavior of a page table, where the page table may further comprise bits for indicating validity and dirtiness in order to provide for improved management of the relevant pages’ status). MPEP 2143
As per claim 10, Barnes in view of Basu teaches claim 8 as shown above and further teaches:
The method of claim 9, further comprising: in response to a write operation for the memory page having a write value that does not match the fixed value: [Instant limitation and the following steps are recited to be executed based on a condition (write value not matching the fixed value) that may fail to trigger within the scope of the method claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation, where, if the condition never occurs, the claimed method may not be required to execute the limitation and the associated steps (please see the claim language section above)] setting, by the MMU, contents of a physical page in memory to a write value; updating, by the MMU, the page table entry in the page table to indicate a physical page address; setting, by the MMU, the present field in the page table entry to indicate the memory page is present in physical memory; setting, by the MMU, the dirty field in the page table entry to indicate the memory page has been modified; and resetting, by the MMU, the fixed page contents field in the page table entry. [Barnes nevertheless teaches that, for a write request directed to a page associated with the read-as-X property, physical memory may be allocated for writing data, virtual page may be mapped to the physical memory, and the read-as-X property may be removed (para. 45, 78, 89; see para. 93 showing page table comprising fields for virtual address and physical address; fig. 6 and associated paragraphs); Basu teaches page table comprising virtual to physical address translation as well as metadata bits including valid and dirty bits as shown above (see claim 2 above; para. 44-46, 48; figs. 2-3 and associated paragraphs) and further teaches the metadata are added to the entries as metadata when a virtual address to physical address translation is added to the page table (para. 46), where, responsive to data being written to the address, a valid value would necessarily indicate validity (present) status and the dirty indicator would indicate modified status.]
Barnes and Basu are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory access.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having knowledge of Barnes and Basu, to modify the disclosures by Barnes to include disclosures Basu since they both teach memory access, wherein Basu is directed towards improved speed and efficiency of page table modification (para. 25). Therefore, it would be applying a known technique (page table comprising information including virtual-physical translation as well as validity value and dirty indicator that are added along with the virtual-physical translation) to a known device (system comprising a page table comprising a field for indicating read-as-X feature, wherein, responsive to a write request, page mapping and data write may be performed and the read-as-X feature may be disabled) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (system comprising a page table comprising a field for indicating read-as-X feature, wherein, responsive to a write request, page mapping and data write may be performed and the read-as-X feature may be disabled, where the page table may further set relevant validity and dirty indicators to provide for improved management of the relevant pages’ status). MPEP 2143
As per claim 11, Barnes in view of Basu teaches claim 8 as shown above and further teaches:
11. The method of claim 8, further comprising: storing, by the MMU, the fixed value in a fixed contents bytes field in the page table entry; and [Barnes as shown above teaches that the read-as-X property may be specified in a field of a page table entry for a given page (para. 90); for the specific value of the X, while Barnes provides for use of an indirection table for storing the X value, Barnes also recites expanding the permissions field (indicating the read-as-X attribute; see claim 1 above and Barnes: para. 90) to indicate the specified value (para. 104), where a portion of the permissions field comprising the specified value may correspond to the fixed contents bytes field; further, where Basu discloses control metadata relating to permissions including a plurality of permissions-related information (para. 47), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the arts to combine the disclosures of Barnes and Basu to provide for additional permissions-related field including the specified X-value.] wherein the fixed value comprises a predetermined bit pattern. [Barnes discloses that the specified value X may be zero (para. 76, lines 25-26)]
Barnes and Basu are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory access.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having knowledge of Barnes and Basu, to modify the disclosures by Barnes to include disclosures Basu since they both teach memory access, wherein Basu is directed towards improved speed and efficiency of page table modification (para. 25). Therefore, it would be applying a known technique (page table comprising a plurality of permissions-related information) to a known device (page table comprising permission field including read-as-X property expandable to include the value of the X) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (page table comprising permission fields indicating read-as-X property and the value of the X to provide for faster referencing of X value to be returned). MPEP 2143
As per claim 12, Barnes in view of Basu teaches claim 11 as shown above and further teaches:
12. The method of claim 11, wherein returning the fixed value comprises: returning, by the MMU, the fixed value stored in the fixed contents bytes field of the page table entry without accessing a physical page in memory in response to the fixed page contents field in the page table entry indicating the memory page contains the fixed value. [Barnes as shown above teaches that, responsive to a read request for a page, the MMU may determine based on the page table information that the page is associated with read-as-X property, where the MMU may then suppress any access to memory which would otherwise be issued and return the specified value X to the processing circuitry (see claims 1, 5 above; para. 76-77, 84, 90; fig. 4 and associated paragraphs)]
As per claim 14, Barnes in view of Basu teaches claim 11 as shown above and further teaches:
14. The method of claim 11, wherein the fixed contents bytes field is in a range from 8 to 64 bits in size. [Barnes in view of Basu as shown above teaches the X-value stored in the page table as shown above (see claim 11; Barnes: 90, 104; Basu: 47); it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the arts, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the space dedicated for storing the X-value as recited in the instant claim in order to support flexible storage of values with various sizes. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please also see MPEP 2144.05 II. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989) (Claimed ratios were obvious as being reached by routine procedures and producing predictable results)]
As per claim 15,
15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: configuring a memory management unit (MMU) to: set, in a page table entry of a page table, a fixed page contents field to indicate the memory page contains the fixed value; store range information in the page table entry indicating a portion of the memory page that contains the fixed value; return the fixed value without accessing a physical page in memory based on a subsequent read request for the memory page and based on the fixed page contents field in the page table entry indicating the memory page contains the fixed value. [Barnes teaches a CPU comprising processing circuitry providing memory requests and comprising a memory management unit (MMU) for controlling access to memory based on page table information (para. 27-28, 64, 66-68, 73, 76-77; figs 1-3 and associated paragraphs); Barnes teaches memory having page table structure from which the MMU may obtain page table information (para. 65, 73, 80); Barnes teaches that, responsive to a read request for a page, the MMU may determine based on the page table information that the page is associated with read-as-X property, where the MMU may then suppress any access to memory which would otherwise be issued and return a specified value X to the processing circuitry (para. 76-77, 84; fig. 4 and associated paragraphs), where the read-as-X property may be specified in a field, such as a permission field, of a page table entry for a given page (e.g. a permissions field) (para. 90), and where the page table entry may also comprise an address as well as the read-as-X property indicator (para. 76, 93)]]
Barnes does not explicitly disclose, but Basu discloses:
receive a request to set a memory page to a fixed value; set, [While Barnes discloses software that may modify attributes relating to the page table’s read-as-X property (para. 94, 103), Barnes’s disclosure is not explicit with respect to the modification being performed by the MMU responsive to a command; Basu teaches a processor sending a command for a memory management unit to modify metadata bits of a page table entry, where the processor may receive requests from a program executing on the processor (para. 94; see para. 24, 27 on an operating system and instructions executing on a processor; see para. 4-5 on a program providing a request to a processor; see para. 47 indicating metadata includes permission bits; see para. 110-112 indicating storage medium having codes executed by a processor for performing its operations)] store the fixed value in a fixed contents bytes field in the page table entry; and [Barnes as shown above teaches that the read-as-X property may be specified in a field of a page table entry for a given page (para. 90); for the specific value of the X, while Barnes provides for use of an indirection table for storing the X value, Barnes also recites expanding the permissions field (indicating the read-as-X attribute; see Barnes: para. 90) to indicate the specified value (para. 104), where a portion of the permissions field comprising the specified value may correspond to the fixed contents bytes field; further, where Basu discloses control metadata relating to permissions including a plurality of permissions-related information (para. 47), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the arts to combine the disclosures of Barnes and Basu to provide for additional permissions-related field including the specified X-value.]
Barnes and Basu are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory access.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having knowledge of Barnes and Basu, to modify the disclosures by Barnes to include disclosures Basu since they both teach memory access, wherein Basu is directed towards improved speed and efficiency of page table modification (para. 25). Therefore, it would be applying a known technique (processor configured to execute and receive requests from a program, the processor providing a command for an MMU to modify metadata bit(s) of a page table) to a known device (system comprising a page table having a field that may be set to provide read-as-X function) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (system comprising a page table having fields including a permission field that may be set to provide read-as-X function, where a program executed on a processor of the system may provide for commands causing an MMU to modify the fields of the page table in order to provide for greater versatility in managing the page table). MPEP 2143
As per claim 16, Barnes in view of Basu teaches claim 15 as shown above and further teaches:
16. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: configuring the MMU to: set, in the page table entry of the page table, a present field to indicate the memory page is not present in physical memory; and set, in the page table entry of the page table, a dirty field to indicate the memory page has not been modified. [Basu teaches metadata in a page table entry including validity (present) value indicating whether the page is accessible or not and dirty indicator indicating whether a corresponding page has been modified or not (para. 46, 48; figs. 2-3 and associated paragraphs), where the validity value and the dirty indicator would necessarily be settable to indicate accessibility and modification as well as the non-accessibility and lack of modification (also see Barnes: para. 60, 77 providing no page has to be allocated for a page marked with read-as-X property)]
Barnes and Basu are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory access.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having knowledge of Barnes and Basu, to modify the disclosures by Barnes to include disclosures Basu since they both teach memory access, wherein Basu is directed towards improved speed and efficiency of page table modification (para. 25). Therefore, it would be applying a known technique (page table comprising information including accessibility and modification of a relevant page) to a known device (system comprising a page table indicating information including read behavior of a page table) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (system comprising a page table indicating information including read behavior of a page table, where the page table may further comprise bits for indicating validity and dirtiness in order to provide for improved management of the relevant pages’ status). MPEP 2143
As per claim 17, Barnes in view of Basu teaches claim 16 as shown above and further teaches:
17. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the operations further comprise: configuring the MMU to, in response to a write operation for the memory page: set contents of a physical page in memory to a write value; update the page table entry in the page table to indicate a physical page address; set the present field in the page table entry to indicate the memory page is present in physical memory; set the dirty field in the page table entry to indicate the memory page has been modified; and reset the fixed page contents field in the page table entry. [Barnes teaches that, for a write request directed to a page associated with the read-as-X property, physical memory may be allocated for writing data, virtual page may be mapped to the physical memory, and the read-as-X property may be removed (para. 45, 78, 89; see para. 93 showing page table comprising fields for virtual address and physical address; fig. 6 and associated paragraphs); Basu teaches page table comprising virtual to physical address translation as well as metadata bits including valid and dirty bits as shown above (see claim 2 above; para. 44-46, 48; figs. 2-3 and associated paragraphs) and further teaches the metadata are added to the entries as metadata when a virtual address to physical address translation is added to the page table (para. 46), where, responsive to data being written to the address, a valid value would necessarily indicate validity (present) status and the dirty indicator would indicate modified status.]
Barnes and Basu are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory access.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having knowledge of Barnes and Basu, to modify the disclosures by Barnes to include disclosures Basu since they both teach memory access, wherein Basu is directed towards improved speed and efficiency of page table modification (para. 25). Therefore, it would be applying a known technique (page table comprising information including virtual-physical translation as well as validity value and dirty indicator that are added along with the virtual-physical translation) to a known device (system comprising a page table comprising a field for indicating read-as-X feature, wherein, responsive to a write request, page mapping and data write may be performed and the read-as-X feature may be disabled) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (system comprising a page table comprising a field for indicating read-as-X feature, wherein, responsive to a write request, page mapping and data write may be performed and the read-as-X feature may be disabled, where the page table may further set relevant validity and dirty indicators to provide for improved management of the relevant pages’ status). MPEP 2143
As per claim 20, Barnes in view of Basu teaches claim 15 as shown above and further teaches:
20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the fixed value is one of a zero value or a predetermined test pattern value. [Barnes discloses that the specified value X may be zero (para. 76, lines 25-26)]
As per claim 23, Barnes in view of Basu teaches claim 12 as shown above and further teaches:
23. The method of claim 12, further comprising: in response to determining that the write value does not match the fixed value stored in the fixed contents bytes field of the page table entry: [Instant limitation and the following steps are recited to be executed based on a condition (write value not matching the fixed value) that may fail to trigger within the scope of the method claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation, where, if the condition never occurs, the claimed method may not be required to execute the limitation and the associated steps (please see the claim language section above)] allocating, by the MMU, a physical page in memory; setting, by the MMU, contents of the physical page to the fixed value stored in the fixed contents bytes field; updating, by the MMU, the page table entry in the page table to indicate a physical page address of the physical page; setting, by the MMU, a present field in the page table entry to indicate the memory page is present in physical memory; setting, by the MMU, a dirty field in the page table entry to indicate the memory page has been modified; resetting, by the MMU, the fixed page contents field in the page table entry; and performing a write of the write value to the physical page.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. (US 20250181515 A1) in view of Basu et al. (US 20170277634 A1) in view of Ju (US 20100250854 A1).
As per claim 18, Barnes in view of Basu teaches claim 15 as shown above. It does not explicitly disclose, but Ju discloses:
18. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: configuring the MMU to, when writing to a cache line of a page marked with the fixed page contents field in the page table entry: skip reading of existing cache line contents from a physical page in memory; and directly fill the cache line with the fixed value. [Barnes in view of Basu as shown above teaches that no physical memory has to be allocated for a page marked as read-as-X (see claim 15 above; Barnes: para. 60, 77) and that a control register may be used for storing the value X corresponding to the page marked as read-as-X (Barnes: para. 104); it does not explicitly disclose, but Ju discloses a prefetching technique for copying data from a portion of a data array into the cache memory (para. 10); it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the arts, provided with disclosures by Barnes in view of Basu, directed towards allocating no physical memory for a page with read-as-X property while storing data for the page in a control register, and disclosures by Ju, directed towards performing a prefetching operation for copying data from a portion of a data array into the cache memory, to provide for a combination where a prefetching operation may still be performed for a read-as-X page, having no physical memory allocated, to instead copy the data from the control register into the cache. Doing so would provide for greater versatility in toggling of the read-as-X property by allowing the data to still be available through the cache.]
Barnes, Basu, and Ju are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory access.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having knowledge of Barnes in view of Basu and Ju, to modify the disclosures by Barnes in view of Basu to include disclosures Ju since they both teach memory access, wherein Ju is directed towards improved memory access (para. 10). Therefore, it would be applying a known technique (performing a prefetching operation for copying data from a portion of a data array into the cache memory.) to a known device (allocating no physical memory for a page while storing data for the page in a control register.) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (a prefetching operation being performed for a read-as-X page, having no physical memory allocated and storing data in a control register, to instead copy the data from the control register into the cache to provide for greater versatility in toggling of the read-as-X property by allowing the data to still be available through the cache.). MPEP 2143
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 21-22 are allowed.
With respect to claim 1, “… a memory coupled to the processor, the memory comprising a page table; wherein the processor is configured to: receive a request to set a memory page to a fixed value; set, in a page table entry of the page table, a fixed page contents field to indicate the memory page contains the fixed value; return the fixed value without accessing a physical page in the memory based on a subsequent read request for the memory page: and maintain the fixed usage contents field in the usage table entry based on a write value of a subsequent write request for the memory page matching the fixed value.” in conjunction with the other limitations of the claim, are not disclosed by the prior art of record.
The closest prior arts of record are Barnes et al. (US 20250181515 A1), Jeong et al. (US 20190012264 A1), So et al. (US 20110225370 A1), Surti et al. (US 20190236026 A1), and Dawson et al. (US 20140331017 A1).
Barnes teaches a page table associated with an MMU and configuring a page table entry field to indicate a page with read-as-X property to cause value X to be returned for reads to the page while suppressing access to memory, where a write to the page may result in removal of the read-as-X property and allocation of memory. Jeong teaches an operation scheduler comprising a table indicating values stored in page buffers for respective memory banks, where write value of a write operation may be compared to the value stored in a corresponding page buffer as indicated on the table, and, responsive to the values matching, the scheduler may issue a write command and write address without write data. Jeong’s teaching is directed to a table for looking up values already stored in page buffers over a specific fixed value property and also does not comprise a page table or similar address translation structure. So teaches setting a data matching flag of a logical address managed in a cache management able responsive to the logical address being copied to a data block. Surti teaches setting a page table entry to indicate that a virtual page is cleared to a clear color. Dawson teaches comparing a match token against pages in a page table for sharing the page across multiple virtual machines.
However, the prior arts of record, neither individually nor in combination, teaches, with respect to a memory comprising a page table, responsive to a request to set a memory page to a fixed value, setting, in a page table entry of the page table in the memory, a fixed page content field to indicate the memory page contains fixed value, where, a subsequent read request for the memory page results in returning the fixed value without accessing the memory, and where a write request for the memory page having a write value matching the fixed value results in maintaining the fixed page contents field in the page table entry.
Therefore, the prior arts of record, neither individually nor in combination disclose, in conjunction with the other limitations of the claim, the claim as a whole.
Claims 2, 4-6 and 21-22 are allowed at least based on the virtues of their dependency from claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the claims 1, 8, and 15 as amended have been fully considered. Claim 1 has been indicative as allowable subject matter based on search and consideration in view of the amendments. With respect to claim 8, the examiner respectfully submits that at least parts of the amended subject matter for claim 8 comprise limitations that are conditionally executed without accounting for the possibility of the condition failing to occur (please see the claim language section above) and thus not required to be executed within the scope of the method claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation. With respect to claim 15, where the argument states that the prior arts of record fail to disclose claimed subject matter directed to indicating a portion of a page associated with a fixed value, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Where the argument states that the prior arts of record fail to indicate which portion of a page contains a fixed value because the prior arts of record provide such indication in a page granularity, the examiner respectfully submits that the claim recites indicating a portion of the page without specifying exclusion of other portions of the page, and, therefore, the whole of the page may reasonably be interpreted as comprising the portion. Where the argument further states that the prior arts of record fail to contemplate a scenario in which only a portion of page contains a fixed value while the remainder contains other data, the examiner respectfully submits that the recitation of claim does not provide for said remainder of the page containing other data in addition to the portion. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 ELIAS KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30-5:30.
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.
/E.Y.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2135
/YAIMA RIGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2135
Prosecution Insights