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 .
This is in response to communications filed on 12/3/25.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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, 6, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wells et al (US Patent Application Publication 20120221873).
For claim 1, Wells et al teach the following limitations: A device comprising: a plurality of components (Fig 2 -Fig 4 show processors, memories and other logics); and a control circuit (PCU 500 shown in Fig 4 – Fig 6) configured to manage performance states for the plurality of components ([0053] P- states of the plurality of engines are managed) by: receiving an event trigger corresponding to a component (Fig 6 shows PCU which receives event trigger; [0058] [0060] compute engine/processor cores); monitoring an activity metric corresponding to at least one of the plurality of components ([0058]; Fig 6; Fig 11; [0060][0061]); and
updating a performance state of the component by modifying an operating frequency of the component (Fig 11 step 1130 and 1140; [0066]-[0069]; new frequency value is adjusted).
For claim 6, the adjustment is based on step size of performance changes in response to event trigger ([0007][0047][0049][0063][0066] the voltage and frequency adjusted upward/downward based on p-state or levels and computed budget which maximizes performance; thus to modify the step size of performance changes).
For claim 8, plurality of components include one or more component classes ([0057] [0004][0013] – processor are assigned with same SKU/bin – all parts within given SKU are regulated for deterministic performance).
For claim 9, processors within SKU are compute units ([0004][0013] and [0057]).
For claim 10, updating performance states includes updating a subset of the component class ([0057] all parts within given SKU; [0064][0066]- other devices are limited)
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) 2-3, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells et al (US Patent Application Publication 20120221873) in view of Waclawsky et al, (US Patent 7116682) further in view of Gao (US Patent Application Publication 20210036963)
For claim 2, Wells et al do not explicitly mention about activity metric corresponding to aggregate bandwidth. Waclawsky et al Fig 2 and lines 1-22 of col 12 mention both increase and decrease of the performance state (i.e., bandwidth) based on event. According to Fig 3 bandwidth adjustment (increase/decrease) is in response to activity metric indicating available bandwidth. (includes aggregate bandwidth). (lines 18-25 of col 25). Fig 3 further shows that bandwidth metric includes cost and negotiation response can be disapproval. The disapproval can be based on budget, which causes maintaining the performance state of the component. Cost depends on available budget (lines 1-20 of col 19) and the bandwidth negotiator uses RSVP (lines 50-55 of col 12), both of which require dependency on other component another component). Thus, the disapproval to maintain the state in response to the metric indicating boundedness based on dependency of another component. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the bandwidth as the activity metric so that system can perform bandwidth optimization. Wells teaches wireless peripheral devices (Fig 2), which can include teachings of Waclawsky et al for bandwidth management. Wells in view of Waclawsky et al does not explicitly teach limited aggregate bandwidth. However, availability in 175-1 of Fig 3 Waclawsky et al,possibly include whether availability is limited or huge. For further clarification, Gao et al teach a system where aggregate bandwidth being less than certain predetermined amount is detected ([0102] total available bandwidth greater than threshold, which also indicates whether total available bandwidth less than threshold). It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the bandwidth as the activity metric and bandwidth availability to categorize as limited availability or sufficiently availability in the system (as taught in Gao), since that way network can plan ahead accordingly. Waclawsky et al Fig 3 send the availability settings which include all the available settings for the system. The settings can be compared with a threshold to further check whether bandwidth availability is sufficient or limited.
For claim 3, Waclawsky et al Fig 3 shows disapproval of the requested setting, which overrides the updated calculation.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells et al (US Patent Application Publication 20120221873), Waclawsky et al, (US Patent 7116682) further in view of Gao (US Patent Application Publication 20210036963), further in view of Salomon et al (US Patent 11985076).
For claim 5, cited art Wells, in view of Waclawsky further in view of Gao does not mention message queue comparing with threshold. Salomon teaches determine aggregate bandwidth (i.e., sufficiency of bandwidth) by comparing queue size with threshold (lines 1-16 of col 6). It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine the aggregate bandwidth by comparing queue size with threshold (as taught in Salomon) since such determination provides a faster and acceptable bandwidth availability determination.
Claim(s) 7, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells et al (US Patent Application Publication 20120221873) in view of Waclawsky et al, (US Patent 7116682)
For claim 7, Wells does not teach suspending performance state changes in response the event trigger. Waclawsky et al Fig 3 shows the disapproval response in 175-3, which causes suspending the change and Fig 3 further shows bandwidth adjustment is based on activity metric. According to Wells, activity is based on events (Fig 6) and Wells can adjust various compute units based on metrics ([0064]-[0066]). It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to suspend performance state change in response to the event trigger, since that way system will bypass the undesirable performance state.
For claim 11, Wells does not mention sending high priority message to a related component in response to trigger. Waclawsky et al lines 50-55 of col 12 mention RSVP protocol message in bandwidth negotiation process in response detecting events. RSVP is a high priority message. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a high priority message in response to event triggers, to reserve the essential resources based on the event/demand. Wells use wireless peripheral device (Fig 2), Wells can adjust various compute units/devices based on metrics ([0064]-[0066]), which can optimize the bandwidth of the component (as disclosed in Waclawsky et al) and use the high priority message for bandwidth allocation in response to the event.
Claim(s) 12, 15, 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krasadakis (US Patent Application Publication 10310471), in view of Wells (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0221873).
For claim 12, Krasadakis teaches the following limitations: A system (system 100 in Fig 1) comprising: a plurality of components comprising: a plurality of compute units (lines 42-45 of col 3 – workstation computers); a plurality of links (lines 42-45 of col 3 – LANs, switches, routers); and a plurality of remote memory (114 in Fig 1 has associated memories; Fig 10; lines 40-55 of col 3 – laptops, workstations have associated memories); and a control circuit (device controller 418 shown in Fig 4) configured to manage performance states for a component class of the plurality of components (line 60, col 18 through line 13 of col 19; controls one or more hardware devices including computers, network equipment; lights can be turned off; air conditioning may be lowered; thus the performance states of one or more component class is managed) by: determining a performance state of the component class based on an activity metric corresponding to at least one of the plurality of components (lines 10-16 of col 3; lines 40-67 of col 3; lines 1-12 of col 5 mention collecting activities regarding status of the machines including CPU utilization on a workstation, LAN utilization, network traffic, HVAC, lights; Fig 1 and Fig 2 shows the activity modeler to record the activities; activity data samples 104 are modeled and stored 116 117 in Fig 2; thus performance state of a component class is determined and recorded based on the activity metrics corresponds to the components) receiving an event trigger (Fig 6 – an identified event; Fig 3) corresponding to the component class (line 63, col 6 through line 3, col 7; line 62, col 12 through line 10, col 13; event corresponds to activity identifiers and data samples 104; thus the event trigger corresponds to the component class; activity type identifiers include component class as explained in lines 1-12 of col 5); and updating the performance state (Fig 3 shows that event weight and metric weight (i.e., activity factor) are assigned; baseline activity score is the activity metric mentioned in lines 35-50 of col 5, lines 4-9 of col 6; weight is adjusted by user lines 30-35 of col 13; the overall energy metric is further calculated in lines 55-60 of col 13; the performance is adjusted based on energy metrics; lines 61, col 18 through line 10, col 19).
For the limitations “by modifying an operating frequency of the component class”, Krasadakis mention controlling devices (lines 61-67 of col 18; lines 1-10 of col 19 including turning off lights, lowering AC, computers and networks equipment).
Krasadakis does not explicitly mention about modifying the operating frequency of the component class. It is understood that lighting control AC control need the frequency adjustment. For further clarification, Examiner cites Wells et al that teach updating a performance state of the component class by modifying an operating frequency of the component (Fig 11 step 1130 and 1140; [0066]-[0069]; new frequency value is adjusted; the components within a class (i.e. SKU bin) are adjusted; [0057]; Fig 7).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the frequency of the component to control the performance state of the component since that way the power optimization can be reached. As Krasadakis lowers the AC by detecting lower energy metrics (lines 1-10 of col 19), the operating frequency can be modified to perform the controlling of the device.
For claim 15, the adjustment is based on step size of performance changes in response to event trigger (Wells [0007][0047][0049][0066] the voltage and frequency adjusted upward/downward based on p-state or levels).
For claim 17, updating performance states includes updating a subset of the component class (lines 60-65 of col 18; one or more hardware devices; Krasadakis)
For claim 19, Krasadakis teaches the following limitations: A method comprising: receiving, by a control circuit (device controller 418 shown in Fig 4; processor shown in Fig 10; the combination is the control circuit) configured to manage a performance state of a component (line 60, col 18 through line 13 of col 19; controls one or more hardware devices including computers, network equipment; lights can be turned off; air conditioning may be lowered; thus the performance states of one or more component class is managed) using an activity metric (Fig 4; the performance is adjusted based on energy metrics; lines 61, col 18 through line 10, col 19; the energy metrics is based on activity metrics lines 45-65 of col 13), an event trigger (Fig 6 – an identified event; Fig 3) corresponding to the component (line 63, col 6 through line 3, col 7; line 62, col 12 through line 10, col 13; event corresponds to activity identifiers and data samples 104; thus the event trigger corresponds to the component class; activity type identifiers include component class as explained in lines 1-12 of col 5); adjusting a weight of the event trigger and a weight of the activity metric by increasing the weight of the event trigger with respect to the weight of the activity metric (Fig 3 shows that event weight and metric weight are assigned; baseline activity score is the activity metric mentioned in lines 35-50 of col 5, lines 4-9 of col 6, lines 40-46 of col 6; weight is adjusted by user lines 30-35 of col 13; the overall energy metric is further calculated in lines 55-60 of col 13; adjustment of weights and increasing event weight with respect to metric weight); and updating the performance state based on the adjusted weights (the overall energy metric is further calculated in lines 55-60 of col 13 based on the adjusted weights;
the performance is adjusted based on energy metrics; lines 61, col 18 through line 10, col 19).
For the limitations “by modifying an operating frequency of the component”, Krasadakis mention controlling devices (lines 61-67 of col 18; lines 1-10 of col 19 including turning off lights, lowering AC, computers and networks equipment). Krasadakis does not explicitly mention about modifying the operating frequency of the component class. It is understood that lighting control AC control need the frequency adjustment. For further clarification, Wells et al teach updating a performance state of the component class by modifying an operating frequency of the component (Fig 11 step 1130 and 1140; [0066]-[0069]; new frequency value is adjusted; the components (i.e. SKU bin) are adjusted; [0057]; Fig 7).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the frequency of the component to control the performance state of the component since that way the power optimization can be reached. As Krasadakis lowers the AC by detecting lower energy metrics (lines 1-10 of col 19), the operating frequency can be modified to perform the controlling of the device.
For claim 20, Krasadakis calculates the energy level in lines 50-60 of col 13, which includes weights. This energy level is used to control the performance (lines 60-67 of col 18). Thus, the performance state based on weights overrides any other performance states in the system.
Claim(s) 13-14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krasadakis (US Patent Application Publication 10310471), in view of Wells (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0221873) in view of Waclawsky et al, (US Patent 7116682) further in view of Gao (US Patent Application Publication 20210036963)
For claim 13, Krasadakis in view of Wells et al do not explicitly mention about activity metric corresponding to aggregate bandwidth. Waclawsky et al Fig 2 and lines 1-22 of col 12 mention both increase and decrease of the performance state (i.e., bandwidth) based on event. According to Fig 3 bandwidth adjustment (increase/decrease) is in response to activity metric indicating available bandwidth. (includes aggregate bandwidth). (lines 18-25 of col 25). Fig 3 further shows that bandwidth metric includes cost and negotiation response can be disapproval. The disapproval can be based on budget, which causes maintaining the performance state of the component. Cost depends on available budget (lines 1-20 of col 19) and the bandwidth negotiator uses RSVP (lines 50-55 of col 12), both of which require dependency on other component another component). Thus, the disapproval to maintain the state in response to the metric indicating boundedness based on dependency of another component. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the bandwidth as the activity metric so that system can perform bandwidth optimization. Wells teaches wireless peripheral devices (Fig 2), which can include teachings of Waclawsky et al for bandwidth management. Wells in view of Waclawsky et al does not explicitly teach limited aggregate bandwidth. However, availability in 175-1 of Fig 3 Waclawsky et al,possibly include whether availability is limited or huge. For further clarification, Gao et al teach a system where aggregate bandwidth being less than certain predetermined amount is detected ([0102] total available bandwidth greater than threshold, which also indicates whether total available bandwidth less than threshold). It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the bandwidth as the activity metric and bandwidth availability to categorize as limited availability or sufficiently availability in the system (as taught in Gao), since that way network can plan ahead accordingly. Waclawsky et al Fig 3 send the availability settings which include all the available settings for the system. The settings can be compared with a threshold to further check whether bandwidth availability is sufficient or limited.
For claim 14, Waclawsky et al Fig 3 shows disapproval of the requested setting, which overrides the updated calculation.
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krasadakis (US Patent Application Publication 10310471), in view of Wells (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0221873), Waclawsky et al, (US Patent 7116682).
For claim 16, Krasadis in view of Wells does not teach suspending performance state changes in response the event trigger. Waclawsky et al Fig 3 shows the disapproval response in 175-3, which causes suspending the change and Fig 3 further shows bandwidth adjustment is based on activity metric. According to Wells, activity is based on events (Fig 6) and Wells can adjust various compute units/devices based on metrics ([0064]-[0066]). It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to suspend performance state change in response to the event trigger, since that way system will bypass the undesirable performance state.
For claim 18, Krasakadis in view of Wells does not mention sending high priority message to a related component. Waclawsky et al lines 50-55 of col 12 mention RSVP protocol message in bandwidth negotiation process in response detecting events. RSVP is a high priority message. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a high priority message in response to event triggers, since Wells use wireless peripheral device (Fig 2) and can adjust various compute units/devices based on metrics ([0064]-[0066]), Wells can optimize the bandwidth (as disclosed in Waclawsky et al) and use the high priority message for bandwidth allocation in response to the event.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection. The newly cited reference Wells et al teach the modifying the frequency of the component/component class as explained above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8159. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 AM - 7 PM. 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, Andrew Jung can be reached on 571-270-3779. 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.
/FAHMIDA RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175