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 .
Claims 26-45 have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. The instant application claims priority to U.S. Application 16/119,291 filed August 31, 2018 (now U.S. Patent No. 12,210,876), which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Applications 62/552,841, 62/552,796, 62/552,855, 62/552,830, and 62/552,930 filed August 31, 2017.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated January 23, 2026 is acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. A copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities.
In Figure 34, the reference character 3460 is used. However, 3460 is not mentioned in the written description. The figure fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5), which states, “Reference characters not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings.”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 26, 27, 29-33, 36, 37, and 39-43 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim corresponding claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,210,876. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the reference patent anticipate those of the instant application.
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 33 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the Applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 33 recites, “the instruction comprises at least two load instructions, each load instruction having different bit lengths.” This language is unclear, contradictory, and ambiguous, rendering the scope of the claims indefinite. It cannot be determined how many instructions are required. Claim 26 recites, “an instruction,” which is interpreted as one instruction. However, claim 33 recites that the one instruction includes at least two instructions. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as, the instruction belongs to a group of instructions that comprises at least two load instructions, each load instruction having different bit lengths. Claim 42 includes similar language and is similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 26-30, 32, 36-40, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2003/0225998 by Khan et al. (previously cited and hereinafter referred to as “Khan”).
Regarding claims 26 and 36, taking claim 26 as representative, Khan discloses:
a method comprising: receiving, at a decode unit, an instruction (1) specifying an operation to be performed and (2) implicitly identifying a base register as an operand of the operation (Khan discloses, at ¶ [0108] decoding and processing instructions, which discloses receiving an instruction at a decode unit that specifies an operation to be performed. As disclosed at ¶ [0212], instructions include those that relatively address from implicitly specified base registers.);
determining, by the decode unit, the identification of the base register implicitly identified as the base register in the instruction (Khan discloses, at ¶ [0108] decoding and processing instructions, which discloses, when the instruction implicitly identifies a base register as disclosed at ¶ [0212], the decode unit identifying the base register.);
output, by the decode unit, one or more control signals that cause an execution unit coupled to the decode unit to perform the operation specified by the instruction using the operand implicitly identified by the instruction (Khan discloses, at ¶ [0108] decoding and processing instructions, which discloses, when the instruction implicitly identifies a base register as disclosed at ¶ [0212], output, by the decode unit, one or more control signals that cause an execution unit coupled to the decode unit to perform the operation specified by the instruction using the operand implicitly identified by the instruction.).
Regarding claims 27 and 37, taking claim 27 as representative, Khan discloses the elements of claim 26, as discussed above. Khan also discloses:
the base register comprises a GP register (Khan discloses, at Table 8, instructions that implicitly identify the GP register, e.g., 0x0D.).
Regarding claims 28 and 38, taking claim 28 as representative, Khan discloses the elements of claim 26, as discussed above. Khan also discloses:
the base register comprises a PC register (Khan discloses, at Table 8, instructions that implicitly identify the PC register, e.g., 0x0C.).
Regarding claims 29 and 39, taking claim 29 as representative, Khan discloses the elements of claim 26, as discussed above. Khan also discloses:
the instruction comprises a load instruction (Khan discloses, at Table 8, load instructions that implicitly identify the base register, e.g., 0x0D.).
Regarding claims 30 and 40, taking claim 30 as representative, Khan discloses the elements of claim 26, as discussed above. Khan also discloses:
the instruction comprises a store instruction (Khan discloses, at Table 8, store instructions that implicitly identify the base register, e.g., 0x0D.).
Regarding claims 32 and 43, taking claim 32 as representative, Khan discloses the elements of claim 26, as discussed above. Khan also discloses:
the instruction comprises a memory access instruction (Khan discloses, at Table 8, memory access instructions that implicitly identify the base register, e.g., 0x0D.).
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.
Claims 31, 33-35, 41, 42, 44, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan.
Regarding claims 31 and 41, taking claim 31 as representative, Khan discloses the elements of claim 26, as discussed above. Khan does not explicitly disclose the instruction comprises an add instruction. However, Khan discloses, at Table 7, add instructions. It would have been obvious to modify Khan’s add instruction to implicitly specify a base register in order to facilitate efficient instruction code.
Regarding claims 33 and 42, taking claim 33 as representative, Khan discloses the elements of claim 26, as discussed above. Khan does not explicitly disclose the instruction comprises at least two load instructions, each load instruction having different bit lengths. However, Khan discloses, at Table 8, load instructions having different bit lengths, e.g., 0x11 and 0x12. It would have been obvious to modify Khan’s load instructions to implicitly specify a base register in order to facilitate efficient instruction code.
Regarding claims 34 and 44, taking claim 34 as representative, Khan discloses the elements of claim 26, as discussed above. Khan also discloses:
determining, by the decode unit, whether the received instruction implicitly identifies a GP register as the base register (Khan discloses, at ¶ [0108] decoding and processing instructions, which discloses, when the instruction implicitly identifies a base register as disclosed at ¶ [0212], determining which register is identified.); and
…determining, by the decode unit, whether the received instruction implicitly identifies a PC register as the base register (Khan discloses, at ¶ [0108] decoding and processing instructions, which discloses, when the instruction implicitly identifies a base register as disclosed at ¶ [0212], determining which register is identified.).
Khan does not explicitly disclose that the aforementioned determination regarding the PC register is in response to a determination that the received instruction does not implicitly identify a GP register as a base register. However, the particular order in which the determinations are made represents an obvious design choice. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to base the second determination on the first, in either order, as circumstances determined.
Regarding claims 35 and 45, taking claim 35 as representative, Khan discloses the elements of claim 34, as discussed above. Khan also discloses:
receiving, at the decode unit, a second instruction; and in response to a determination by the decode unit that the second instruction does not implicitly identify a GP register or a PC register as a base register, then outputting, by the decode unit, one or more control signals that cause the execution unit to perform an operation specified by the second instruction using an operand explicitly identified by the second instruction (Khan discloses, at ¶ [0108] decoding and processing instructions, which discloses, when the instruction explicitly specifies the operand, as disclosed at ¶ [0135], receiving, at the decode unit, a second instruction; and in response to a determination by the decode unit that the second instruction does not implicitly identify a GP register or a PC register as a base register, then outputting, by the decode unit, one or more control signals that cause the execution unit to perform an operation specified by the second instruction using an operand explicitly identified by the second instruction.).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
US 20180157490 by Craske discloses executing both 16-bit and 32-bit instructions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN DOMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5677. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30am-6pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jyoti Mehta can be reached on 571-270-3995. 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.
/SHAWN DOMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183