DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The office acknowledges the following papers:
IDS filed on 5/21/2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Ould-Ahmed-Vall disclosed vector broadcast instructions that broadcast a single data element to half or an entire destination vector register. Ould-Ahmed-Vall doesn’t disclose receiving a set of parameters with the first set of data and producing a second set of data from duplicating the first set of data in both of the first and second modes.
Priority
The effective filing date for the subject matter defined in the pending claims in this application is 12/30/2016.
Drawings
The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 6/20/2025 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. The Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which the Applicant may become aware.
Appropriate correction is required.
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. See 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
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).
Applicants can file an eTerminal Disclaimer (eTD) in utility applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 371, and design applications. Filing an eTD via EFS-Web is highly recommended due to an extensive backlog for processing paper TDs. However, applicants may still file a TD for manual review.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,339,782. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 12,339,782 contains every element of claims 18-20 of the instant application and thus anticipates the claims of the instant application. Claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later application claim is not patently distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
Instant Application
Patent 12,339,782
18. A method comprising:
19. A method comprising:
retrieving, from a memory, a first set of data;
receiving, by a memory controller, a first set of elements associated with a vector;
determining whether to produce a second set of data by duplicating the first set of data by a first amount that is based on a predetermined vector size of a processor or by a second amount that is independent of the predetermined vector size of the processor;
determining a second set of elements by: determining, based on a first duplication factor, whether to perform a first type of duplication on the first set of elements; and determining, based on a second duplication factor, whether to perform a second type of duplication on the first set of elements; and
the processor functional unit has a native data width; the first set of elements includes a set of subsets; and the second duplication factor specifies whether to duplicate each subset of the set of subsets of the first set of elements to meet the native data width (Claim 19).
producing the second set of data; and
providing the second set of elements to a processor functional unit.
providing the second set of data to the processor.
providing the second set of elements to a processor functional unit.
Dependent claims 19-20 are read upon by the dependent claims 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,339,782.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 & 2) as being anticipated by Ould-Ahmed-Vall et al. (U.S. 2013/0339664).
As per claim 18:
Ould-Ahmed-Vall disclosed a method comprising:
retrieving, from a memory, a first set of data (Ould-Ahmed-Vall: Figures 1 and 5 element 102, paragraph 2);
determining whether to produce a second set of data by duplicating the first set of data by a first amount that is based on a predetermined vector size of a processor or by a second amount that is independent of the predetermined vector size of the processor (Ould-Ahmed-Vall: Figures 3A-B elements 301A-B and 302A-B, paragraphs 10-11)(A data element is broadcast either fully or partially (i.e. first amount) into a destination register that has a predetermined 256-bit width.);
producing the second set of data (Ould-Ahmed-Vall: Figures 3A-B elements 302A-B, paragraphs 10-11); and
providing the second set of data to the processor (Ould-Ahmed-Vall: Figures 1 and 3A-B elements 100 and 302A-B, paragraphs 2 and 10-11)(The produced data is written back to the register file, which makes it available to the processor.).
As per claim 19:
Ould-Ahmed-Vall disclosed the method of claim 18, wherein the first amount is based on a ratio of the predetermined vector size to a vector size of the first set of data (Ould-Ahmed-Vall: Figure 3B element 302B, paragraph 11)(The duplicated amount is a ratio of the destination register size.).
As per claim 20:
Ould-Ahmed-Vall disclosed the method of claim 18, wherein the producing of the second set of data includes padding the second set of data (Ould-Ahmed-Vall: Figure 3B element 302B, paragraph 11)(The duplicated amount is a ratio of the destination register size. The elements not duplicated in the destination are zero padded.).
Conclusion
The following is text cited from 37 CFR 1.111(c): In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Macy, JR et al. (U.S. 2004/0054877), taught shuffling data.
Anderson et al. (U.S. 2020/0089495), taught vector load and duplicate operations.
Rubinstein et al. (U.S. 2015/0134937), taught a SIMD shifter with duplication options.
Eapen et al. (U.S. 11,977,884), taught a replicate elements instruction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A. PETRANEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5988. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-4:30.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACOB PETRANEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights