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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to communication filed on 03/31/2026, claims 1-20 have been amended per the Applicant’s request. Claims 1-20 are presently pending in the application.
The previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 8, and 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The independent claims have been amended to include new limitations that were never previously presented; thereby, these amendments change the scope of the claims. However, newly found prior art is applied.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al. (NPL, “Recent Thermal Management Techniques for Microprocessors”, hereinafter “Kong”) in view of Vajapeyam (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2014/0181837 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kong teaches one or more processors, comprising:
circuitry to:
determine that a combination of processing cores is operating according to one or more patterns of utilization associated with one or more historic thermal characteristics (Kong page 15 second to last paragraph, i.e., the entire paragraph, the Examiner interprets the thermal index of each core and thermal behaviors in the history window as the recited patterns).
Kong fails to explicitly teach control utilization of the combination of processing cores at least in part by scheduling threads on the processing cores to avoid the one or more patterns of utilization. However, in the same field of endeavor, Vajapeyam teaches control utilization of the combination of processing cores at least in part by scheduling threads on the processing cores to avoid the one or more patterns of utilization (Vajapeyam ¶0022). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kong by incorporating the teachings of Vajapeyam. The motivation would be for enhancing program performance by reducing local cache miss rates, proactively reducing the possibility of thermal hotspots, as well as by utilizing otherwise idle hardware (Vajapeyam ¶0022).
As to claim 2, Kong as modified by Vajapeyam also teaches the one or more processors of claim 1, the circuitry to cause the combination of processing cores to operate at a reduced capacity based, at least in part, on the determination (Vajapeyam ¶0022).
As to claim 3, Kong as modified by Vajapeyam also teaches the one or more processors of claim 1, the circuitry to load the historic thermal characteristics from a configuration file (Kong page 15, second to last paragraph, i.e., the default system configuration).
As to claim 4, Kong as modified by Vajapeyam also teaches the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein a central processing unit (CPU) comprises the combination of processing cores (Kong page 15, second to last paragraph, i.e., a multicore processor).
As to claim 5, Kong as modified by Vajapeyam also teaches the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the combination of processing cores is masked based, at least in part, on the historic thermal characteristics of the combination of processing cores (Kong page 15, second to last paragraph, i.e., “Their algorithm balances application loads considering the location of the cores” and “If the thermal index of the core is high (more prone to be a hotspot), the value of this core is decreased faster”, i.e., masking the cores considered as hotspots).
As to claim 6, Kong as modified by Vajapeyam also teaches the one or more processors of claim 1, the circuitry to measure thermal characteristics based, at least in part, on an average temperature as measured by thermal sensors located at a plurality of positions on a chip comprising the processing cores (Kong page 15 second paragraph, i.e., average temperature; and page 34 second paragraph, i.e., “The average temperature of each application is measured by per-core temperature sensors”).
Claim 8 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 9 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 10 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
As to claim 11, Kong also teaches the system of claim 8, wherein a processor chip comprises the combination of processing cores (Kong page 5 second to last paragraph).
Claim 12 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 13 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 6 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 14 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 7 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 15 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 16 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 17 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 18 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 4 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 19 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
As to claim 20, Kong also teaches the machine-readable medium of claim 15, comprising further instructions, which if performed by one or more processors, cause the one or more circuits to cause one or more masked processor cores to enter a low power state (Kong page 32, second paragraph).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong in view of Vajapeyam, and further in view of Alissa et al. (TW 202537366 A, hereinafter “Alissa”)
As to claim 7, Kong as modified by Vajapeyam teaches the one or more processors of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more patterns of utilization are associated with performance of a machine learning workload. However, in the same field of endeavor, Alissa teaches the one or more patterns of utilization are associated with performance of a machine learning workload (Alissa page 4, second to last paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kong and Vajapeyam by incorporating the teachings of Alissa. The motivation would be to provide a thermal management of electronic components (Alissa Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form PTO-892.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER KHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm EST.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571)272-4085. 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.
/ALEXANDER KHONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights