DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 19/016,702 has a total of 20 claims pending in the application, there are 3 independent claims and 17 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
INFORMATION CONCERNING DRAWINGS
Drawings
The applicant's drawings submitted 1/10/2025 are acceptable for examination purposes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REFERENCES CITED BY APPLICANT
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. ' 609 (C), the applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statement, dated 3/26/2025, is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. ' 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over US 12,197,335. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
US 12,197,335
An apparatus comprising:
a cache configured to:
receive a prefetch message to generate a prefetch of one or more cache blocks of a group of cache blocks; and
receive a cancel message that causes canceling the prefetch of the one or more cache blocks of the group of cache blocks, the cancel message including an address that indicates the group of cache blocks and a bit field that indicates the cache block of the one or more cache blocks of the group; and a processor core to use the cache to prefetch data.
1. An apparatus comprising:
prefetch circuitry configured to:
transmit a prefetch message to generate a prefetch of one or more cache blocks of a group of cache blocks; and
transmit a cancel message that causes canceling the prefetch of the one or more cache blocks of the group of cache blocks, the cancel message including an address that indicates the group of cache blocks and a bit field that indicates the cache block of the one or more cache blocks of the group; and a processor core to use the prefetch circuitry to prefetch data.
It would have been obvious to modify claim 1 of US 12,197,335 for the benefit of obtaining the invention as specified in claim 1 of the instant application, as it would be obvious to have circuitry to receive a message (as claimed in the instant application) that is transmitted (as claimed in US 12,197,335). The other independent claims correspond as follows:
Instant Application
US 12,197,335
Claim 7
Claim 8
Claim 15
Claim 11
Further, the dependent claims of both cases contain substantially similar limitations.
STATEMENTS OF REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In independent claims 1, 7, and 15 the following features taken in combination with the remaining limitations of the independent claims are not found in and/or are not obvious in view of the closest prior art of record.
Claim 1 (and similarly for claims 7 and 15),
"receive a cancel message that causes canceling the prefetch of the one or more cache blocks of the group of cache blocks, the cancel message including an address that indicates the group of cache blocks and a bit field that indicates the cache block of the one or more cache blocks of the group; and a processor core to use the cache to prefetch data;"
Though a cancel message that causes canceling of a prefetch is known in the art, see for example, Gschwind et al (US 9,535,696), Fig. 5, and Arimilli et al (US 6,438,656), abstract, the cited prior art does not teach the cancel message including an address that indicates the group of cache blocks and a bit field that indicates the cache block of the one or more cache blocks of the group as required by claim 1. Claims 7 and 15 contain allowable subject matter for similar reasons. The dependent claims are allowable as they depend from an allowable base claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
RELEVANT ART CITED BY THE EXAMINER
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant's art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These references include:
Pierson et al (US 9,239,798) teaches Prefetcher With Arbitrary Downstream Prefetch Cancelation.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Conclusion
STATUS OF CLAIMS IN THE APPLICATION
The following is a summary of the treatment and status of all claims in the application as recommended by M.P.E.P. ' 707.07(i):
CLAIMS REJECTED IN THE APPLICATION
Per the instant office action, claims 1-20 have been rejected.
DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCES
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark Giardino whose telephone number is (571) 270-3565 and can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. 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.
/MARK A GIARDINO JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2135