DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to arguments filed on 3/16/2026.
Claims 1 – 23 are pending.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 7 – 13 and 15 – 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yeung et al (US 20190258528, hereinafter Yeung).
As per claim 1, Yeung discloses: A method, comprising:
responsive to dispatching a first workload, comprising a set of commands associated with a first command, to at least one of a first processor or a second processor at a processing system, synchronously executing the first workload with the first command; (Yeung figure 7, [0050]: “A receiving operation 702 receives one or more graphics workloads from an application. Each graphics workload received during the receiving operation 702 is associated with completion deadline information and execution metadata.”; [0051]: “the execution metadata is an intent tag. The intent tag indicates a performance intent for the graphics workload. A performance intent provides guidelines about the power needed to process the graphics workload, the payload signature of the graphics workload, or the context of the graphics workload.”; [0053]: “An executing operation 708 executed each of the one or more received workloads by the processor subsystem based on the processor performance adjustment”. Examiner notes that the performance adjustment is mapped to the claimed first command.)
and dynamically adjusting, during the execution of the first workload, an operating state of the at least one of the first processor or the second processor based on a first operating state indicated by the first command. (Yeung [0052]: “A generating operation 704 generates a processor performance adjustment for each graphics workload based on the completion deadline information and the execution metadata.”; [0053]:” The processor subsystem used the generated processor performance adjustment to adjust the operating frequency of the processor subsystem so that the graphics workload may be executed by the performance deadline without using too much power… An executing operation 708 executed each of the one or more received workloads by the processor subsystem based on the processor performance adjustment.”)
As per claim 2, Yeung further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, at a scheduler, the first command; and sending a signal to a power controller of the processing system to set the at least one of the first processor or the second processor to the first operating state. (Yeung [0040]: “operating system power management module 320 communicates the generated processor performance adjustment and the graphics workload to the processor subsystem 321. In one implementation, the processor subsystem 321 is a GPU. The processor subsystem 321 then uses the processor performance adjustment to adjust the operating frequency of the processor subsystem during the execution of the graphics workload.”)
As per claim 3, Yeung further discloses:
The method of claim 2, further comprising: indicating, in a second command executed synchronously with a second workload at the processing system, a second operating state of the at least one of the first processor or the second processor during execution of the second workload. (Yeung [0052]: “A generating operation 704 generates a processor performance adjustment for each graphics workload based on the completion deadline information and the execution metadata.”; [0053]:” The processor subsystem used the generated processor performance adjustment to adjust the operating frequency of the processor subsystem so that the graphics workload may be executed by the performance deadline without using too much power… An executing operation 708 executed each of the one or more received workloads by the processor subsystem based on the processor performance adjustment.”)
As per claim 4, Yeung further discloses:
The method of claim 3, wherein execution of the second workload overlaps at least in part with execution of the first workload. (Yeung [0027]: “For example, if several graphics workloads are to be executed by the GPU 224 simultaneously, the processor performance adjustment may instruct the GPU to operate at a higher frequency than it would if just one graphics workload was being executed at a time.”)
As per claim 5, Yeung further discloses:
The method of claim 4, further comprising: selecting at least one of the first operating state and the second operating state for the at least one of the first processor or the second processor during execution of the first workload and the second workload based on an arbitration policy. (Yeung [0018]: “Dynamic processor power management balances performance with energy consumption in a computing device by allowing the operating system layer 102 to suggest an operating frequency to the GPU 121 for executing a graphics workload. The suggested operating frequency suggested by the operating system layer 102 is a processor performance adjustment… the processor performance adjustment is an energy performance level (EPL). An EPL is an integer between 0 and 100, where 0 indicates that the GPU 121 should optimize its frequency for energy savings (lowest frequency) and where 100 indicates that the processor should optimize its frequency for speed and performance (highest frequency). When the GPU 121 receives the processor performance adjustment from the operating system layer 102, the GPU translates the processor performance adjustment to a corresponding operating frequency. In other implementations, the processor performance adjustment may be an adjustment to another variable affecting processor performance.”)
As per claim 7, Yeung further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first command comprises a target operational goal. (Yeung [0051]: “the execution metadata is an intent tag. The intent tag indicates a performance intent for the graphics workload. A performance intent provides guidelines about the power needed to process the graphics workload, the payload signature of the graphics workload, or the context of the graphics workload.”)
As per claim 8, Yeung further discloses:
The method of claim 7, wherein the target operational goal comprises at least one of a performance target or an efficiency target. (Yeung [0030]: “In the case of an intent tag specifying periodic, then the processor performance adjustment can evaluate the temporal relationships among submitted workloads and periodically expected workloads to smooth out dramatic oscillations between high speed frequencies and power efficient frequencies.”)
As to claims 9 – 13 and 15, it is a system claim having limitation substantially the same as those of claim 1 – 5 and 7, respectively. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reason.
As to claim 16 – 20, it is a computer readable medium claim having limitation substantially the same as those of claim 1, 3 – 5 and 7, respectively. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reason.
As per claim 21, Yeung further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first processor is a central processing unit (CPU) and the second processor is a parallel processing unit (PPU). (Yeung [0049])
As to claim 22, it is a system claim having limitation substantially the same as those of claim 21. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reason.
As to claim 23, it is a computer readable medium claim having limitation substantially the same as those of claim 21. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reason.
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeung, in view of Muthiah (US 20220179585).
As per claim 6, Yeung did not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 5, wherein the arbitration policy is based on at least one of: times when the first command and the second command are received at the scheduler, or times when the first command and the second command complete execution.
However, Muthiah teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein the arbitration policy is based on at least one of: times when the first command and the second command are received at the scheduler, or times when the first command and the second command complete execution. (Muthiah [0063])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Muthiah into that of Yeung in order to have the arbitration policy is based on at least one of: times when the first command and the second command are received at the scheduler, or times when the first command and the second command complete execution. Yeung [0018] teaches using EPL as an arbitration for the tags, however, one of ordinary skill in the art can easily see that other forms of known arbitration schemes can easily be adapted here without deviating from the general teaching of Yeung. Such combination would enhance the overall appeals of all references and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As to claim 14, it is a system claim having limitation substantially the same as those of claim 6, respectively. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reason.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1:
Applicant argued on pages 1 – 9 that Yeung does not anticipate the claimed limitations of claim 1. More specifically, applicant argued that claim 1 requires simultaneous execution of the first workload and the first command. Applicant further argued that Yeung discloses that “execution metadata is evaluated by the operating system prior to execution in order to generate a separate processor adjustment… Processing or evaluating metadata to generate a later adjustment is not execution of a command, and does not satisfy the express requirement of synchronous execution.” (page 7, paragraph 4).
The examiner disagrees. Referring first to the instant specification [0011]: “adjusting an operating state of one or more processors of a heterogeneous processing system during execution of a workload based on a tag (also referred to herein as a command) paired with the workload. The workload is a software workload that executes partially at a CPU and partially at one or more parallel processors of the heterogeneous processing system, and both the tag and the workload are submitted asynchronously to the one or more parallel processors. In some embodiments, the tag represents a command that specifies a desired operating state, such as a power or frequency setting of the processor. In other embodiments, the tag represents a command that specifies a performance or power efficiency target, such as high compute throughput or high memory throughput.”. [0026] of the instant specification further teaches “To facilitate setting operating states of components of the parallel processor 106 and CPU 102 to meet performance or efficiency targets during execution of workloads having varying targets, the work queue 128stores commands (tags) 140, 142, 144 that are paired with the workloads 130, 132, 134. The commands 140, 142, 144 specify operating states or targets for components of heterogeneous processing system 100 such as the parallel processor 106 during execution of the workloads.”; [0033]: “scheduler 122 of the processing system 100 signaling the power management controller 104 to set the operating state of a processor based on a command, command-1140, paired with the workload-1130 during execution of the workload-1130 in accordance with some embodiments. The scheduler 122 reads the workload-1130 and the command-1140 from the work queue 128. In some embodiments, the scheduler 122 provides the command-1140 to the PMC 104 concurrently with dispatching workload-1130 to one or both of the CPU 102 and the parallel processor 106. The PMC 104 implements the operating state specified by the command-1140 at the CPU 102 and the parallel processor 106 during execution of workload-1130. In embodiments in which the command-1140 indicates a performance or efficiency target operational goal rather than specifying an operating state, the PMC 104 implements an operating state selected to achieve the performance or efficiency target operational goal indicated by the command 1140.”. It can be seen that based on the cited paragraph in the instant specification, the first command is merely a tag specifying a desired operating state, such as a power or frequency setting of the processor, and the claimed “synchronously executing the first workload with the first command” is merely just adjust the operating state of the processor for executing the first workload.
Next referring to cited portions of the Yeung, figure 7 and [0050] – [0053], the intent tag that indicates a performance intent for the graphics workload ([0051]) and a performance adjustment generated corresponding to the intent tag is the equivalent to the claimed first command, the first command is executed together with the first workload (synchronously). Thus, Yeung anticipates the claimed limitation in question.
Applicant argued on pages 8 – 9 that Yeung does not anticipate the claimed limitations of claim 1, “and dynamically adjusting, during the execution of the first workload, an operating state of the at least one of the first processor or the second processor based on a first operating state indicated by the first command.”. More specifically, applicant further argued that Yeung discloses that “the intent tag provides high-level guidance or intent, and the operating system generates a processor performance adjustment that is then translated into an operating frequency… An operating state that is generate by the operating system performance model is not an operating state indicated by a command” (page 8, paragraph 3).
The examiner disagrees, similar to the previous point raised, applicant appears to misinterpret the claimed command more than what the specification describes, which is just a tag specifying a desired operating state, such as a power or frequency setting of the processor, and the claimed “and dynamically adjusting, during the execution of the first workload, an operating state of the at least one of the first processor or the second processor based on a first operating state indicated by the first command.” is merely just adjust the operating state of the processor to execute the first workload.
Next referring to cited portions of the Yeung, figure 7 and [0050] – [0053], the intent tag that indicates a performance intent for the graphics workload ([0051]) and a performance adjustment generated corresponding to the intent tag is the equivalent to the claimed first command, the first command is executed together with the first workload (synchronously). Thus, Yeung anticipates the claimed limitation in question.
Rest of the claims:
No distinct arguments are presented.
Conclusion
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 CHARLES M SWIFT whose telephone number is (571)270-7756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 7PM.
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, April Blair can be reached at 5712701014. 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.
/CHARLES M SWIFT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196