DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed August 10, 2026 has been entered. Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 are cancelled, leaving claims 1-5, 8-15, and 18-20 pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 22, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-15 and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11’s last limitation of executing conditional logic appears to replace the original last limitation of “upon the hit determination being a hit, providing resulting cache data before the third stage is complete”; however, the original last limitation is not properly marked as erased; while the claim language is clear, examiner cautions that the improper amendment marking may result in a printer error should the claim be patented,
The dependent claims are objected to for dependence on claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP § 2111.04(II) provides that “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.”.
Claims 11-15 and 18-20 are directed to method claims and must therefore be analyzed for contingent limitations.
Claim 11 has been amended to recite
In response to the hit determination being a hit for the current transaction, determining if the attribute data for the first transaction meets a first condition…
In response to determining that the attribute data for the first transaction meets the first condition, determining the hit determination for the current transaction as pending;
Executing conditional logic that, in response to the hit determination being a hit, provides resulting cache data before the third stage is complete.
The earlier limitation only recites “making a hit determination based on the tag data during a first stage”, with no specific requirement that a particular result is made or found. As such, the condition, the hit determination being a hit, is not required within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the scope of claim 11, and so the step of determining if the attribute data meets a first condition is not required within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, and the specific step of providing resulting cache data before the third stage is complete is not required within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. In addition, regarding the hit determination as pending, the condition, where the attribute data meets the first condition, is found to not be required for a couple reasons. First, as discussed above, the limitation determining if the attribute data meets the first condition is not required in the first place. Second, even if claim 11 is amended to require the performance of the determining limitation, the determining limitation does not specify a particular result, so the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require the attribute data to meet the first condition. As a result, the pending hit determination limitation is not required within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 12 recites “in response to the hit determination being a miss, issuing a read request to memory before the third stage is complete”. However, there is no recitation altering the determination in the claim 11 analysis that there is no specific requirement concerning the result of the hit determination. As such, the condition, the hit determination being a miss, is not required within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the scope of claim 12, and the performance of the issuing limitation is consequently not required.
Claim 18 recites “in response to determining that the attribute data for the first transaction does not meet the first condition, determining if the attribute data for the second transaction meets a second condition”. The condition, where the attribute data does not the first condition, is found to not be required for a couple reasons. First, as discussed above in the analysis of claim 11, the limitation determining if the attribute data meets the first condition is not required in the first place. Second, even if claim 11 is amended to require the performance of the determining limitation, the determining limitation does not specify a particular result, so the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require the attribute data to not meet the first condition. As a result, the determining if the attribute data for the second transaction meets the second condition is not required within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 18 also recites
In response to determining that the second transaction meets the second condition, determining the hit determination for the current transaction as a miss; and
In response to determining that the second transaction does not meet the second condition, determining the hit determination for the current transaction as a hit.
As detailed above, the limitation determining whether attribute data of the second transaction meets the second condition is not required within the broadest reasonable scope of the claim. In addition, the limitation does not recite a particular result, so neither condition (meeting/not meeting the second condition) is required within the broadest reasonable scope of the claim. As a result, currently, neither limitation is required within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
However, as the conditions are mutually exclusive (the attribute data either meets or does not meet the second condition), if the claim is amended such that determining if the attribute data of the second transaction meets the second condition is required within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, then while neither determination of the hit determination is explicitly required, one of the two limitations must be performed.
Claim 19 recites “in response to the hit determination being a miss for the current transaction, determining if the attribute data for the first transaction meets a third condition”. However, in parent claim 11, there is no specific result recited for the hit determination for the current transaction. As such, the condition, the hit determination being a miss for the current transaction, is not required within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the scope of claim 19, and the performance of the determining limitation is consequently not required.
Claim 19 also recites “in response to determining that the attribute data for the first transaction meets the third condition, determining the hit determination for the current transaction as a hit”. The condition, where the attribute data meets the third condition, is found to not be required for a couple reasons. First, as discussed above, the limitation determining if the attribute data meets the third condition is not required in the first place. Second, even if claim 19 is amended to require the performance of the determining limitation, the determining limitation does not specify a particular result, so the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require the attribute data to meet the third condition. As a result, the hit determination limitation is not required within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 20 recites “in response to determining that the attribute data for the first transaction does not meet the third condition, determining if the attribute data for the second transaction meets a fourth condition”. The condition, where the attribute data does not the third condition, is found to not be required for a couple reasons. First, as discussed above in the analysis of claim 19, the limitation determining if the attribute data meets the third condition is not required in the first place. Second, even if claim 19 is amended to require the performance of the determining limitation, the determining limitation does not specify a particular result, so the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require the attribute data to not meet the third condition. As a result, the determining if the attribute data for the second transaction meets the fourth condition is not required within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 20 also recites
In response to determining that the second transaction meets the fourth condition, determining the hit determination for the current transaction as a hit; and
In response to determining that the second transaction does not meet the fourth condition, determining the hit determination for the current transaction as a miss.
As detailed above, the limitation determining whether attribute data of the second transaction meets the fourth condition is not required within the broadest reasonable scope of the claim. In addition, the limitation does not recite a particular result, so neither condition (meeting/not meeting the fourth condition) is required within the broadest reasonable scope of the claim. As a result, currently, neither limitation is required within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
However, as the conditions are mutually exclusive (the attribute data either meets or does not meet the fourth condition), if the claim is amended such that determining if the attribute data of the second transaction meets the fourth condition is required within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, then while neither determination of the hit determination is explicitly required, one of the two limitations must be performed.
To resolve this issue, if applicant seeks to make the contingent limitations required within the performance of the claim, one of two amendments would be sufficient: either remove the conditional language, thereby removing the contingent nature of the limitation at issue, or include an additional limitation positively reciting the condition as required within broadest reasonable interpretation of the performance of the claim.
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 8, 10, 18, and 20 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 8 and 18 recite “determining that the second transaction meets the second condition” and “determining that the second transaction does not meet the second condition”. However, as claims 8 and 18 earlier recite “determining if the attribute data for the second transaction meets a second condition”, then the two determining limitations render the claim indefinite, as it is not clear whether the second transaction meeting the second condition is meant to be identical to or different from the attribute data of the second transaction meeting the second condition. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed the claims recite “determining that the attribute data for the second transaction meets the second condition” and “determining that the attribute data for the second transaction does not meet the second condition”. See also claim 7 for how it determines the attribute data for the first transaction meets the first condition” for consistency of language.
Claims 10 and 20 recite “determining that the second transaction meets the fourth condition” and “determining that the second transaction does not meet the fourth condition”. However, as claims 10 and 20 earlier recite “determining if the attribute data for the second transaction meets a fourth condition”, then the two determining limitations render the claim indefinite, as it is not clear whether the second transaction meeting the fourth condition is meant to be identical to or different from the attribute data of the second transaction meeting the fourth condition. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed the claims recite “determining that the attribute data for the second transaction meets the fourth condition” and “determining that the attribute data for the second transaction does not meet the fourth condition”. See also claim 7 for how it determines the attribute data for the first transaction meets the first condition” for consistency of language.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As discussed above in the section concerning claim interpretation, claims 12 and 17-20 recite a number of limitations that are determined to be recited in contingent form and upon further analysis are not required within the broadest reasonable scope of the claim. Upon further evaluation, in each of these claims, those contingent limitations are the only limitations recited within those claims. Therefore, as these limitations are not required within the broadest reasonable scope of the claim, then in each of these claims, there is no subject matter recited that narrows the parent claims from which they depend, meriting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements. Examiner notes that an amendment to address the contingent nature of the limitations may sufficiently alter the broadest reasonable scope of the claims to overcome this rejection, as requiring the performance of the contingent limitations would provide required limitations that sufficiently narrow the parent claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over York (US 6,745,291, as presented in applicant’s IDS) in view of Cain, III et al. (US 2012/0331233, “Cain”).
Regarding claim 11, York teaches a method for performing LRU replacement computation for a cache including multiple sets with each set having multiple respective ways (Fig. 5 depicts a n-way set associative cache, with ways 0-N), the method comprising:
reading tag data for the current transaction and making a hit determination based on the tag data during a first stage (“The cache controller starts with a cache fetch operation and as shown at block 46 generates a page, line and double word address which is deposited in the buffer registers shown in FIG. 5 as access registers 26 and 27. The information in registers 26, 27 is used to raise pointers for the line address as shown at block 47. Assuming that there is no invalid state bit in portion 19 and that the page or tag 28 compares with the page in the directory at the line being addressed, there is a hit as shown at line 48 and the comparison for the page at the line address is made at block 49,” Col. 6, Lines 9-18 in the context of Figs. 5 and 9, see also “the microprocessor 10 is shown having an onboard L1 cache and controller 11 which is shown having an LRU selector 34 which connects as a pointer to directory 35 as well as the directories 16 and 17. As explained hereinbefore, when a hit occurs data from a double word is provided on data bus 32 from one of the N-directories. However, when a miss occurs it is necessary to write over one of the lines in one of the N-ways,” Col. 4, Lines 28-35);
reading LRU data for the current transaction during a second stage (“the controller automatically generates the least recently used line at one of the N-ways 21, 22 or 36 by accessing the table or tables shown in FIG. 7. The LRU generated in block 55 automatically selects the least recently used line from the cache memory and enables that line in the directories and in the way which is least recently used,” Col. 6, Lines 27-33, in the context of Fig. 7’s LRU tables and Fig. 9’s LRU calculation process);
performing an LRU replacement computation during a third stage (“While the line is being returned to the cache controller, the block 56 generates the LRU pointer to one of the N-ways as shown at block 56 which raises an enable signal on line 57 so that the line is written in the proper bank at the proper line indicated by the LRU at block 56. While the LRU pointer is being raised, a new ordering sequence is generated at block 58 for the same line in the N-ways. It is only necessary to reorder the sequence for one line at all of the ways and does not require reordering for the other 127 lines in one way and the 128 lines in the other ways,” Col. 6, Lines 33-43 in the context of Fig. 9); and
executing conditional logic that, in response to the hit determination being a hit, provides resulting cache data before the third stage is complete (“As explained hereinbefore, when a hit occurs data from a double word is provided on data bus 32 from one of the N-directories. However, when a miss occurs it is necessary to write over one of the lines in one of the N-ways,” Col. 4, Lines 31-35 provides that the LRU determination is only required when there is a miss in the double word; i.e.- a hit will result in providing the cache data without needing to calculate the LRU information; examiner notes that while not necessary due to the contingent limitation not being required, York still teaches this limitation).
York fails to teach the method comprising:
maintaining attribute data for two previous transactions including a first transaction and a second transaction, wherein the first transaction precedes the second transaction and the second transaction precedes a current transaction; and
resolving a hazard condition for making the hit determination for the current transaction based on the attribute data.
For clarity of record, as discussed in the claim interpretation section, the limitations that are recited to provide further detail what resolving a hazard condition comprises are identified as contingent with the condition not required and therefore not required within the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 11. However, the basic step of resolving a hazard condition is still required within the claim, and York fails to teach this resolving a hazard condition.
Cain’s disclosure relates to providing detection tracking logic for a multicore system with a cache system, and as such comprises analogous art in the same field of endeavor as cache memories.
As part of this disclosure, Cain discloses additional tracking data structures, including a valid bit, a false sharing detection table, and bitmasks for tracking which portion of a cache line has been touched or accessed, see [0014], see also Fig. 2 with false sharing detection table 218 including tag, validity, difference, and overlap information. Cain continues to describe how these data can be used to determine and affect how cache hits and misses are processed, see [0026-0029], see also Fig. 3 showing how even if an initial tag match is found in step 304, the valid bit is utilized to resolve whether the cache line truly is available or not, potentially resulting in a coherence miss in step 312, see also [0047], and if the bit is valid, then the false sharing detection table and bitmask are utilized to determine whether or not the hit is related to a previously accessed portion of a cache line or not, see steps 332, 336, 338, 340, 344, 342, see also [0049, 0050].
An obvious modification can be identified: incorporating Cain’s false sharing detection table and related data structures into York’s set associative cache. Such a modification reads upon the limitation of the claim, as Cain’s data structures track whether cache lines from previous transactions remain valid or not, and track what portions of a cache line are accessed, reading upon the attribute data of the first and second transactions (while Cain does not explicitly mention two prior transactions, this necessarily follows from Cain’s system operating after multiple accesses), and the data structures are utilized to resolve hazard conditions in determining for making hit determinations (e.g. the valid bit being able to indicate coherence misses allows for a correction to a hit determination when there’s an initial hit on an evicted/invalidated cache line, and the false sharing detection entries and bit mask help determine whether or not a true sharing hit occurs or if the portion of the cache line has not been accessed yet), reading on the resolving limitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Cain’s false sharing detection table and related data structures into York’s set associative cache, as this can help with performance by identifying whether hits or misses actually result in coherence misses due to invalidated or partial cache line accesses due to granularity, see [0002,0003].
Regarding claim 12, the combination of York and Cain teaches the method of claim 11, and York teaches the method further comprising:
in response to the hit determination being a miss, issuing a read request to memory before the third stage is complete (“Assume now that there is a miss as shown at line 51 which results in the controller 11 raising a line fill address and the fetching of a line from a page in the tag and page address from the L2 cache memory as shown at block 52. The line of information being fetched is returned directly to the host CPU as well as the cache controller as shown at block 53. The controller writes the line of information in one of the ways or banks at the LRU line address as shown at block 54 and exits waiting a new address or action. Concurrent with the miss operation on line 51, the controller automatically generates the least recently used line at one of the N-ways 21, 22 or 36 by accessing the table or tables shown in FIG. 7,” Col. 6, Lines 18-30 teaches that the fill from the underlying memory in response to a miss occurs concurrent with the LRU determination, i.e. – the line fetching necessarily occurs before the LRU calculation is complete).
Claim 12 has been identified as reciting contingent limitations, see the section concerning claim interpretation, and further that the scope of claim 12 fails to narrow the subject matter of claim 11, see the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), and therefore claim 12 can alternately be rejected according to the same rationale of claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of York and Cain teaches the method of claim 11, and York teaches the method further comprising:
Waiting for the LRU data to be read during an additional stage that occurs between the second stage and the third stage (“the controller automatically generates the least recently used line at one of the N-ways 21, 22 or 36 by accessing the table or tables shown in FIG. 7. The LRU generated in block 55 automatically selects the least recently used line from the cache memory and enables that line in the directories and in the way which is least recently used. While the line is being returned to the cache controller, the block 56 generates the LRU pointer to one of the N-ways as shown at block 56 which raises an enable signal on line 57 so that the line is written in the proper bank at the proper line indicated by the LRU at block 56. While the LRU pointer is being raised, a new ordering sequence is generated at block 58 for the same line in the N-ways. It is only necessary to reorder the sequence for one line at all of the ways and does not require reordering for the other 127 lines in one way and the 128 lines in the other ways,” Col. 6, Lines 27-43 provides that the determination of the LRU pointer to one of the N-ways is based on the LRU information read from the tables; necessarily, the determination of the LRU pointer must wait for the LRU information to be read from the LRU tables)
Regarding claim 14, the combination of York and Cain teaches the method of claim 11, and York teaches the method further comprising:
storing tag data in a tag data table and storing LRU data in an LRU data table, wherein the tag data table is separate from the LRU data table (Fig. 5, directories 0-N store the address information reading upon the tag data table, and the LRU order table is depicted within the controller as item 34, see also “It is only necessary to add a software implementation of an LRU ordering table 34 and accompanying software to implement its use without changing the existing mode of operation. The slight increase in cost for adding each directory and its associated way and an LRU table in memory,” Col. 6, Lines 54-59).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of York and Cain teaches the method of claim 11, and York further teaches wherein the tag data table and the LRU data table are implemented in separate memory devices (see Fig. 5 where the tag directories are shown separate from the LRU ordering table, which is depicted within the L1 cache and controller).
As discussed earlier in the sections concerning claim interpretation and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), claims 18-20 are identified to recite contingent limitations and fail to further narrow the subject matter of the claims from which they depend, here claim 11. As such, claims 18-20 can be rejected according to the same rationale of claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 9 are allowed.
Claims 8 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance/indicating allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 has been amended to incorporate the limitations of claims 6 and 7, where claim 1 now recites
In response to the hit determination being a hit for the current transaction, determining if the attribute data for the first transaction meets a first condition, the first condition at least indicating that the first transaction will allocate an LRU way and the way information is still pending; and
in response to determining that the attribute data for the first transaction meets the first condition, determining the hit determination for the current transaction as pending.
Claim 8 recites “The cache of claim 1, wherein resolving the hazard condition further comprises:
in response to determining that the attribute data for the first transaction does not meet the first condition, determining if the attribute data for the second transaction meets a second condition, the second indication at least indicating that the second transaction has allocated an LRU way that matches a HIT way of the current transaction;
in response to determining that the second transaction meets the second condition, determining the hit determination for the current transaction as a miss; and
in response to determining that the second transaction does not meet the second condition, determining the hit determination for the current transaction as a hit.”
Claim 9 recites “The cache of claim 1, wherein resolving the hazard condition comprises:
upon the hit determination being a miss for the current transaction, determining if the attribute data for the first transaction meets a third condition, the third condition at least indicating that the first transaction has a same tag portion of the address as the current transaction and the first transaction will allocate an LRU way; and
in response to determining that the attribute data for the first transaction meets the third condition, determining the hit determination for the current transaction as a hit.”
Claim 10 recites “The cache of claim 9, wherein resolving the hazard condition further comprises:
in response to determining that the attribute data for the first transaction does not meet the third condition, determining if the attribute data for the second transaction meets a fourth condition, the fourth indication at least indicating that the second transaction has a same tag portion of the address as the current transaction and the second transaction will allocate an LRU way;
in response to determining that the second transaction meets the fourth condition, determining the hit determination for the current transaction as a hit; and
in response to determining that the second transaction does not meet the fourth condition, determining the hit determination for the current transaction as a miss.”
In the prior office action mailed March 19, 2026, the analysis was made that while Cain provides some ability to analyze the false sharing detection table entries to determine whether hits/misses actually are hits/misses, Cain does not provide the exact details recited in claim 1 or claims 8-10 concerning the hit determination and when to determine if the first through fourth conditions are met and how those affect the hit determination.
In a search of the art, while a number of references are found to address the disclosed inventive context of overlapping accesses, see Dorward et al. (US 7,254,689), Omura (US 7,421,536), Williams et al. (US 11,561,901), Mola (US 2020/0142769), Williams et al. (US 2020/0409771), Eyole et al. (US 2022/0391214), Allan (US 2023/0205609) and false hits/misses, see Cohen et al. (US 5,551,001), Sager et al. (US 6,425,055), Jacob (US 2008/0163008), Diamand et al. (US 2018/0189192), none of the references resolve hit/miss determination in the exact manner recited, and an updated search of the art did not provide any additional references, leading to a determination that the art fails to render the claims obvious and therefore claim 1 is allowed and further that claims 8-10 recite allowable subject matter.
Claims 2-5 and 9 are allowed for dependence on claim 1.
Claims 8 and 10 would be allowed except the indefiniteness issue under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has not been resolved.
Examiner notes that a similar amendment is made in claim 11, incorporating the elements of claims 16 and 17. However, the amendments did not require the conditions of the contingent limitations of claim 17, and therefore claim 11 currently does not require the limitations of claim 1 that are found to support allowance. As noted above in the claim interpretation section, this can be addressed by either amending the limitations to no longer be contingent on a condition, or to positively recite the condition as required within the performance of the claim.
Examiner notes that the subject matter of claims 8-10 is also recited in claims 18-20. However, at this moment, as discussed in the section concerning claim interpretation and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), those limitations are found to be contingent and not required within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. If the claims are amended to address the contingent nature of the limitations and require these limitations within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, then the rationale concerning claims 8-10 would apply to claims 18-20 as well.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 10, 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part and unpersuasive in part.
Regarding the art rejections to claims 1-6, examiner agrees that the incorporation of claims 6 and 7 into claim 1 sufficiently overcomes this rejection.
Regarding the art rejections to claims 11-16, due to the contingent limitations of the claim still not being required in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, examiner finds the argument unpersuasive, as the required claims can still be rejected under York and Cain, as seen above.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(d), the remarks are unpersuasive, as no amendments are found to address the indefiniteness issue. Further, while the claims do utilize “in response to” in an attempt to address the contingent nature of the limitations, the phrase “in response to” still provides that the limitations are contingent on a condition but do not alter the determination that the conditions are not required within the claim. As such, the arguments are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cohen, Sager, Dorward, Omura, Williams, Jacob, Diamand, Mola, Williams, Eyole, Allan, as cited above.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AARON D HO whose telephone number is (469)295-9093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:00 CT.
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, Reginald Bragdon can be reached at (571)272-4204. 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.
/A.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2139
/REGINALD G BRAGDON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2139
Prosecution Insights