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 .
Claims 1-10,12-25, 27-30 are presented for examination.
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-10,12-14, 16, 22, 23,27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Anubolu et.al. (U.S Patent Application Publication 2022/0038394; hereinafter “Anubolu”; ( Reference cited as prior art in previous office action)].
Regarding claims 1, 16, Anubolu discloses, a method performed by a network device, the method comprising:
accessing, from a queue corresponding to a port of the network device, a packet for processing [ “The network environment 100 includes one or more electronic devices 102A-C connected via a network switch 104. The electronic devices 102A-C may be connected to the network switch 104, such that the electronic devices 102A-C may be able to communicate with each other via the network switch 104. The electronic devices 102A-C may be connected to the network switch 104 via wire (e.g., Ethernet cable) or wirelessly. The network switch 104, may be, and/or may include all or part of, the network switch discussed below with respect to the ingress packet processing 105 of FIG. 1B”, 0020; “..the ingress packets may correspond to network packets. Packets may be divided into fixed sized packet cells and queued into IP 240 and/or cell buffer 250…”, 0023];
identifying a present operating region (ORE) of the network device, wherein one or more OREs are specified for the network device, an ORE of the one or more OREs associated with at least one of (i) one or more device attributes of the network device, or (ii) one or more environmental factors associated with an environment in which the network device is operable [0017; “..Throttle control 280 is able to count the number or rate of incoming ingress packets, and thus cells, for throttling. Further, throttle control 280 may receive ingress scheduler (IS) metadata, for example buffer fill rates. Based on an energy usage estimate from energy estimator 290, throttle control 280 can determine a target clock rate according to configurable throttle policies to meet a target average energy value, which may correspond to a target TDP that is configured for the example network switch”, 0024; “graph of power throttling when using a zero budget policy with a constant high load,..”, 0028; “..the “OfferedLoad” now varies over time, which allows the surplus power budget to be credited when the target clock rate or “Throttle Factor” exceeds the actual adjusted power gated clock rate, ..”, 0029; (i.e. identifying the number or rate of incoming ingress packets or the workload corresponds to the attributes of the network device operating region)].
determining a number of power credits available for processing one or more packets [ 0028; “ the “OfferedLoad” now varies over time, which allows the surplus power budget to be credited when the target clock rate or “Throttle Factor” exceeds the actual adjusted power gated clock rate, which can be measured from the energy usage estimate received from energy estimator 290. For example, as discussed above, the step control 282 may gradually adjust the clock rate towards the target clock rate, in which case the power gated clock rate may be less than it could be at that time. The difference between the measured and target clock rate is therefore credited to the surplus power budget. ..”, 0029];
in response to determining that the number of power credits available is non-negative forwarding the packet to a packet processor to process completing processing of the packet [“a packet processing block 110 within an example network switch, .. Ingress scheduler (IS) 220 receives ingress packets, which are then scheduled for processing through ingress processing (IP) 240… , if an ingress packet is 1000 bytes and the cells are 200 bytes, then the ingress packet may be divided into 5 cells. IP 240 may be configured to process up to a defined bandwidth of packet cells, such as 4 billion packets worth of cells per second, and cell buffer 250 may hold cells to be processed that exceed the available bandwidth of IP 240”, 0023; ( i.e the scheduler determining to forward the packet to the Ingress processor(IP) of the packet processing block or to the cell buffer ); “For example, the “energy per clock—with packet” may correspond to the estimated energy used when the ingress packets or cells are being processed (and thus enable is asserted), ..”, 0024; “The difference between the measured and target clock rate is therefore credited to the surplus power budget. When a spike in the “OfferedLoad” workload is later encountered, the surplus power budget may be expended to raise the “Throttle Factor”, as indicated by the upwards triangle portion of the “Throttle Factor”. .. Thus, the conservative zero budget policy helps to conserve power budget to address future high workloads”, 0029; “..When the throttle policy is set to “Aggressive Ramp Policy”, energy estimator 290 may set the surplus power budget to an initial non-zero value when a reset signal is received from throttle control 280 to indicate the start of a new thermal average period. Thus, as shown in FIG. 3C, the “Throttle Factor” may be immediately set to the ceiling, or “ConfiguredHiClock”, and remain there until the surplus power budget is exhausted..”, 0030; (i.e determining that the power budget is surplus to process the packets/ workload);0034; “Process 400 may continue with determining, for each of the plurality of measurement periods, a target clock rate for the packet processing block based on the determined energy usage estimates to meet a target energy value that is averaged for the thermal average period (412). Referring to FIG. 2C, this may correspond to throttle control 280 determining, for each of the plurality of measurement periods, a target clock rate for IP 240 based on the energy usage estimates from 411 to meet a target TDP that is averaged for the thermal average period. ..” 0035-0036;( i.e. in response to the surplus power budget forwarding the packets until the power budget is exhausted or non-negative to process the packets at a target clock rate to meet a target TDP)].
in response to determining that the remaining number of power credits available is negative[“This means that when energy estimator 290 receives a reset signal from throttle control 280 to indicate the start of a new thermal average period, a surplus power budget is reset to zero. Throttle control 280 may be configured not to adjust the “ThrottleFactor”, or target clock rate, beyond the clock rate needed to achieve the target TDP for the thermal average period, or the “Target Energy”, when there is no credit available from the surplus power budget. Since the packet processing workload or “OfferedLoad” is a constant high load, there is no opportunity to fill the surplus power budget, and therefore the clock rate is kept constant without exceeding the “Target Energy” value.”, 0028; ( i.e there is no power credit or surplus power budget. Hence determining the number of power credits available is negative)] holding the packet from packet processor until subsequently determining that the number of power credits available is non-negative, the holding of the packet from the packet processor reducing an amount of data processed by the packet processor per clock cycle [0023-0024; ( i.e the scheduler determining to forward the packet to the Ingress processor(IP) of the packet processing block or to the cell buffer and determining to process the packets based on the energy usage estimate) ; After the surplus power budget is expended, throttling may resume to meet the target energy average for the thermal average period, as indicated by the downwards triangle portion of the “Throttle Factor”. Note that the “Throttle Factor” is bounded by the “ConfiguredLoClock” floor and does not throttle any further”, 0029; ( i.e. the packets are held in the queue/ buffer when the surplus power budget is expended or zero and the packets are not processed by throttling the clock for a period( as illustrated in Fig.3D). Hence reducing an amount of data processed for a clock cycle)]; and
computing, based at least on the present ORE of the network device and using a size of the packet, a power credit reduction for the packet, the power credit reduction corresponding to an amount of power for processing the packet [0018; “Packets may be divided into fixed sized packet cells and queued into IP 240 and/or cell buffer 250. For example, if an ingress packet is 1000 bytes and the cells are 200 bytes, then the ingress packet may be divided into 5 cells. ..”, 0023; the “energy per clock—with packet” may correspond to the estimated energy used when the ingress packets or cells are being processed (and thus enable is asserted), and the “energy per clock—without packet” may correspond to the estimated energy used when the ingress packets or cells are not being processed (and thus enable is not asserted). ..for example by measuring power consumption at various corners of the package die that implements IP 240”, 0024;Fig.2B; “an energy usage estimate for a packet processing block configured to process ingress packets at a power gated clock rate.; ( i.e. energy usage estimation is using the size of the packets to be processed during a measurement period); Process 400 may continue with determining, for each of the plurality of measurement periods, a target clock rate for the packet processing block based on the determined energy usage estimates to meet a target energy value that is averaged for the thermal average period (412)…”, 0035-0036; Fig.3C; [( i.e. energy usage estimation is based on the offered load and the size of the packet cells processed during a measurement period.)]; 0028; “For example, as discussed above, the step control 282 may gradually adjust the clock rate towards the target clock rate, in which case the power gated clock rate may be less than it could be at that time. The difference between the measured and target clock rate is therefore credited to the surplus power budget. When a spike in the “OfferedLoad” workload is later encountered, the surplus power budget may be expended to raise the “Throttle Factor”, as indicated by the upwards triangle portion of the “Throttle Factor”. After the surplus power budget is expended, throttling may resume to meet the target energy average for the thermal average period, as indicated by the downwards triangle portion of the “Throttle Factor”. ...”, 0029; ( i.e. the surplus power budget is reduced or credited according to the difference amount calculated by the Throttle control to generate the Throttle factor based on the energy usage estimate to process the packet. Hence determining the amount of power required to process the packets and computing a power credit reduction accordingly with respect to the difference amount. Examiner interprets the Surplus power budget as the power credit) ]; and
reducing the number of power credits available by the power credit reduction for the packet [“..surplus power budget is expended ..”, 0029; “ Thus, as shown in FIG. 3C, the “Throttle Factor” may be immediately set to the ceiling, or “ConfiguredHiClock”, and remain there until the surplus power budget is exhausted, at which point throttling is incurred and the “Throttle Factor” ramps down to “ConfiguredLoClock” for the remainder of the thermal average period.”, 0030].
Further Anubolu discloses,
A plurality of ports for receiving packet data [0020; Fig.1A]
A packet processor configured to process packets via the plurality of ports [0022-0023] ( as recited in Claim 16)
Claim recites the following contingent limitations:
i) “in response to determining that the number of power credits available is non-negative, forwarding the packet to a packet processor to process completing processing of the packet”;
ii) in response to determining that the remaining number of power credits available is negative, holding the packet from packet processor until subsequently determining that the number of power credits available is non-negative, the holding of the packet from the packet processor reducing an amount of data processed by the packet processor per clock cycle.
iii) “computing, based at least on the present ORE of the network device and using a size of the packet, a power credit reduction for the packet, the power credit reduction corresponding to an amount of power for processing the packet; and reducing the number of power credits available by the power credit reduction for the packet”.
These limitations are contingent because they recite steps that are only required to be performed if their conditions precedent are met; Limitation i) need to be performed only if the determined number of power credits available is non-negative, limitation ii) only needs to be performed if the determined number of power credits available is negative and limitation iii) only needs to be performed if the determined number of power credits available is non- negative or the preceding condition/ step i) is satisfied.
These conditions are mutually exclusive, and therefore only one of limitations i) and ii) can be performed. Therefore, the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of claim 1 requires only one of either limitation i) or limitation ii), and limitation iii) need to be performed only when step i) condition is satisfied.
Hence it would be sufficient for the Examiner to rejects only the limitations i) and iii) or only limitation ii)[“ in response to determining that the remaining number of power credits available is negative, holding the packet from packet processor until subsequently determining that the number of power credits available is non-negative, the holding of the packet from the packet processor reducing an amount of data processed by the packet processor per clock cycle”].
However, for compact prosecution Examiner rejects all of the limitations.
Regarding claims 7, 22 Anubolu discloses generate a particular number of power credits upon expiry of a specified time period; and increase the number of power credits available by the particular number of power credits generated [0028-0029; Fig. 3A, 3B] . Regarding claims 8, 23 Anubolu discloses wherein generating the particular number of power credits is based on the present ORE of the network device, wherein the one or more OREs specified for the network device are associated with different numbers of power credits [ 0028-0029; 0030-0031].
Regarding claim 12, 27, Anubolu discloses wherein the network device is a network switch, wherein the packet processor is an ingress packet processor [Fig.2B], wherein accessing the packet for processing from the queue corresponding to the port of the network device comprises accessing, by an ingress arbiter of the network device, the packet from an ingress queue corresponding to an ingress port of the network device, wherein forwarding the packet comprises transmitting cells corresponding to the packet to an ingress packet processor of the network device [0020-0024] , and wherein reducing the number of power credits available by the power credit reduction for the packet comprises reducing the number of power credits available by the power credit reduction for the packet following transmission of an end of packet (EOP) cell corresponding to the packet [ 0029].
Regarding claims 13, 28, Anubolu discloses wherein the network device is an Ethernet switch, and wherein the method further comprises , determining the size of the packet as an aggregate of a physical packet size, an inter-packet gap (IPG), and a preamble[0020-0021; 0023].
Regarding claims 14, 29, Anubolu discloses wherein accessing the packet from the queue comprises accessing one or more cells corresponding to the packet from the queue, and wherein the method further comprises: obtaining an end-of-packet (EOP) cell corresponding to the packet from the queue; and determining the size of the packet upon obtaining the EOP cell [0023-0024].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 of this title, 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 2, 3, 4, 17, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anubolu in view of Fresman et.al. (U.S Patent Application Publication 2018/0241650; hereinafter “Fresman”; [ Reference cited as prior art in previous office action])
Regarding claims 2, 17, Anubolu discloses the limitations outlined in claim 1.
determining the power credit reduction for the packet corresponding to the computed amount of power for processing the packet [ 0024; 0029; 0036]
However Anubolu does not expressly disclose selecting, based at least on the size of the packet, a particular weight value of a plurality of weight values; determining a weighted size of the packet based on the size of the packet and the particular weight value; computing the amount of power for processing the packet as a function of the weighted size of the packet; and determining the power credit reduction for the packet corresponding to the computed amount of power for processing the packet.
In the same field of endeavor( e.g. determines an amount of energy consumed by node in processing the packet to send the content across a network), Fresman teaches,
selecting, based at least on the size of the packet, a particular weight value of a plurality of weight values[ FIG. 6 is an example data structure 600 that allows for a node 106 (e.g., a packet processing and forwarding node) to determine whether routing costs or energy consumption values should be given greater weight in determining the routing of a packet. As shown in FIG. 6, accumulated consumption values 602 shows different ranges of aggregated energy consumption values (e.g., in watts, joules, etc.), such as from 0 to 0.9, 1 to 1.9, 2 to 2.9, etc. Also, as shown in FIG. 6, α and β values 604 show two values. In embodiments, α is a weight factor associated with power consumption and β is a weight factor associated with routing cost. In embodiments, the summation of a and β is one. In embodiments, the total network path value/cost (S) is equal to α*(energy consumption)+β*(routing cost)”, 0042];
determining a weighted size of the packet based on the size of the packet and the particular weight value; computing the amount of power for processing the packet as a function of the weighted size of the packet[ 0018; 0043-0044];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Anubolu with Fresman. Fresman’s teaching of determining whether energy consumption or routing costs should be given greater weights for routing of the packets will substantially improve Anubolu’s system to determining an aggregate energy consumption value as well providing users of a network with information that makes them aware of how much energy is being consumed to transmit and/or receive content through the network. and the path computation may be dynamically determined with changing energy consumption values.[0043]
Regarding claims 3, 18, Fresman teaches, wherein selection of the particular weight value is further based on the present ORE of the network device, wherein the one or more OREs specified for the network device are associated with respective plurality of weight values[0043-0044].
Regarding claims 4, 19, Anubolu discloses , determining the size of the packet to be one of a first size or a second size, the first size being greater than the second size; upon determining that the size of the packet is the first size, and upon determining that the size of the packet is the second size [ 0023-0024]
Fresman teaches, selecting a first weight value of the plurality of weight values as the particular weight value; selecting a second weight value of the plurality of weight values as the particular weight value, wherein the first weight value is greater than the second weight value [ 0042-0044].
Claims 15, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anubolu.
Regarding claims 15, 30 Anubolu discloses wherein the one or more device attributes of the network device include device current and wherein the one or more environmental factors include one or more of a device junction temperature, an ambient temperature, or a temperature of a device enclosure [ 0016-0017].
However, Anubolu does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more device attributes of the network device include device current.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Anubolu to include device current the one or more device attributes of the network device, as Anubolu teaches “wherein the throttling is managed over thermal time periods based on meeting, for each thermal time period, a target energy consumption by periodically measuring estimated power consumption and adjusting throttle targets accordingly..” to increase the performance demands and power management within a target thermal design power(TDP) limit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 9, 10, 20, 21, 24, 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims 1, 16 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply as setforth in the above rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Margetts et. al., U.S Patent Application Publication 2019/0065086, teaches systems and methods to schedule transmission of commands over multiple channels and banks of memory devices in a memory system within a power budget.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GAYATHRI SAMPATH whose telephone number is (571)272-5489. The examiner can normally be reached on 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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached on 5712701640. 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.
/MOHAMMED H REHMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
/GAYATHRI SAMPATH/ Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights