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 .
Claims 1, 12, and 18 have been amended.
Claim 22 has been added.
Claims 1-6, 8-20, and 22 have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claims 1-6, 8-20, and 22 include features not shown in the drawings. The drawings therefore fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.83(a), which states, “The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.” The following features are examples of claimed elements not shown in the figures.
Claim 1 recites that the controller is configured to track.
Claim 2 recites a number of parameters corresponding to a total aging value.
Claim 3 recites continuing to track after disabling.
Claim 4 recites that it is the controller that is configured to swap out cores.
Claim 5 recites features of swapping out, such as power gating and remapping.
Claim 6 recites that it is the controller that swaps out cores.
Claim 8 recites swapping is invisible.
Claim 9 recites the controller periodically swaps.
Claim 10 recites the periodic swapping is based on an aging milestone.
Claim 11 recites swapping based on a reboot.
Claim 22 recites the controller predicting likelihood of failure.
As the above features are not shown, the features must be shown or the features must be canceled from the claims. Claims 12-20 include corresponding features and are objected to for similar reasons. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 12, 13, 15, 18, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2013/0047166 by Penzes et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Penzes”).
Regarding claim 1, Penzes discloses:
a device comprising: a plurality of physical processor cores comprising at least one enabled core and at least one disabled core (Penzes discloses, at Figure 2 and related description, a device having a plurality of cores. As disclosed at ¶ [0023] et seq., some can be active, i.e., enabled, while others are inactive, i.e., disabled.); and
a controller configured to: detect a fault of the at least one enabled core (Penzes discloses, at Figure 2 and related description, a power management unit (PMU) that monitors aging of the cores. This includes detecting slowed frequency, which is an example of an age-related fault.); and
track, for each of the plurality of physical processor cores, a total aging value, wherein the total aging value corresponds to faults (Penzes discloses, at Figure 2 and related description, a power management unit (PMU) that monitors aging of the cores, which discloses tracking a total aging value for each core. As disclosed, e.g., at ¶ [0021] et seq., aging corresponds to faults.).
Regarding claim 2, Penzes discloses the elements of claim 1, as discussed above. Penzes also discloses:
the total aging value corresponds to at least one of: a total length of time a core has been enabled for a lifetime of the core; a total length of time the core has been active for the lifetime of the core; an activity level of the core while the core is active; or a system temperature while the core is active (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0027], aging corresponds to instruction execution, i.e., activity.).
Regarding claim 3, Penzes discloses the elements of claim 1, as discussed above. Penzes also discloses:
the controller is configured to continue tracking the total aging value for disabled cores of the plurality of physical processor cores after disabling the disabled cores (Penzes discloses, at Figure 9 and related description, monitoring and comparing aging of cores in various states, which discloses continuing tracking for disabled cores.).
Regarding claim 4, Penzes discloses the elements of claim 1, as discussed above. Penzes also discloses:
the controller is configured to swap out enabled cores for disabled cores (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0025], swapping one core for another, which discloses swapping enabled cores for disabled cores.).
Regarding claim 6, Penzes discloses the elements of claim 4, as discussed above. Penzes also discloses:
the controller swaps out the enabled cores for the disabled cores based on respective total aging values (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0025], swapping one core for another based on aging.).
Regarding claim 12, Penzes discloses:
a system comprising: a physical memory (Penzes discloses, at Figure 2 and related description, a device having a plurality of cores. Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0034], memory.);
a plurality of physical processor cores comprising: a first core that is enabled; and a second core that is disabled (Penzes discloses, at Figure 2 and related description, a device having a plurality of cores. As disclosed at ¶ [0023] et seq., some can be active, i.e., enabled, while others are inactive, i.e., disabled.); and
a controller configured to: detect a fault of the first core (Penzes discloses, at Figure 2 and related description, a power management unit (PMU) that monitors aging of the cores. This includes detecting slowed frequency, which is an example of an age-related fault.);
track, for each of the plurality of physical processor cores, a total aging value, wherein the total aging value corresponds to faults (Penzes discloses, at Figure 2 and related description, a power management unit (PMU) that monitors aging of the cores, which discloses tracking a total aging value for each core. As disclosed, e.g., at ¶ [0021] et seq., aging corresponds to faults.); and
swap out the first core for the second core based on the respective total aging value (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0025], swapping one core for another, which discloses swapping enabled cores for disabled cores.).
Regarding claim 13, Penzes discloses the elements of claim 12, as discussed above. Penzes also discloses:
the total aging value corresponds to at least one of: a total length of time a core has been enabled for a lifetime of the core; a total length of time the core has been active for the lifetime of the core; an activity level of the core while the core is active; or a system temperature while the core is active (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0027], aging corresponds to instruction execution, i.e., activity.).
Regarding claim 15, Penzes discloses the elements of claim 12, as discussed above. Penzes also discloses:
the controller is configured to swap out enabled cores for disabled cores using a round-robin scheduling for the respective total aging values (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0026], rotating the execution between the cores, which discloses swapping based on fair share or round robin scheduling.).
Regarding claim 18, Penzes discloses:
a method comprising: detecting a fault of at least one enabled core of a plurality of physical processor cores (Penzes discloses, at Figure 2 and related description, a power management unit (PMU) that monitors aging of the cores. This includes detecting slowed frequency, which is an example of an age-related fault.);
tracking a total aging value for each of a plurality of physical processor cores, wherein the total aging value corresponds to faults, wherein the plurality of physical processor cores includes at least one enabled core that is logically connected and at least one disabled core that is logically disconnected (Penzes discloses, at Figure 2 and related description, a device having a plurality of cores. As disclosed at ¶ [0023] et seq., some can be active, i.e., enabled, while others are inactive, i.e., disabled. Penzes discloses, at Figure 2 and related description, a power management unit (PMU) that monitors aging of the cores, which discloses tracking a total aging value for each core. As disclosed, e.g., at ¶ [0021] et seq., aging corresponds to faults.);
selecting the at least one enabled core and the at least one disabled core for swapping based on the respective total aging values (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0025], swapping one core for another, which discloses selecting and swapping enabled cores for disabled cores.); and
swapping out the selected at least one enabled core for the selected at least one disabled core (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0025], swapping one core for another, which discloses swapping enabled cores for disabled cores.).
Regarding claim 20, Penzes discloses the elements of claim 18, as discussed above. Penzes also discloses:
using a round-robin scheduling for selecting the at least one enabled core and the at least one disabled core for swapping (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0026], rotating the execution between the cores, which discloses swapping based on fair share or round robin scheduling.).
Regarding claim 22, Penzes discloses the elements of claim 1, as discussed above. Penzes also discloses:
the controller is configured to predict a likelihood of failure based on the tracked total aging values (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0025], determining if any cores are aging faster and swapping them out. This is done in recognition that the cores aging faster are more likely to fail, which discloses predicting a likelihood of failure based on the tracked total aging values.).
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.
Claims 5, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penzes in view of US Publication No. 2013/0047166 by Varma et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Varma”).
Regarding claim 5, Penzes discloses the elements of claim 4, as discussed above. Penzes also discloses:
the controller is further configured to swap out the enabled cores for the disabled cores by: disabling, via power gating, one or more enabled cores (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0050], turning off the power supply to inactive cores.);
enabling, via a wake up operation, a number of disabled cores that corresponds to a number of the disabled one or more enabled cores (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0025], swapping one core for another, which discloses a corresponding number and a wakeup operation.); and
logically remapping the disabled one or more enabled cores to the enabled one or more disabled cores (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0025], swapping one core for another, which discloses logically remapping.); and
logically disconnecting the disabled one or more enabled cores such that the disabled one or more enabled cores are …unavailable for performing processing tasks (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0050], turning off the power supply to inactive cores, which logically disconnects the cores and renders them unavailable for performing processing tasks.).
Penzes does not explicitly disclose the aforementioned disabled cores are not logically mapped and are not visible to an operating system.
However, in the same field of endeavor (e.g., core management) Varma discloses:
cores that are not logically mapped and are not visible to an operating system (Varma discloses, at ¶ [0129], cores that are not mapped and are hidden from the OS.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Penzes to include Varma’s mapping as one way to simplify control of inactive cores.
Regarding claim 14, Penzes discloses the elements of claim 12, as discussed above. Penzes also discloses:
the controller is further configured to swap out the first core for the second core by: disabling, via power gating, the first core (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0050], turning off the power supply to inactive cores.);
enabling, via a wake up operation, the second core (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0025], swapping one core for another, which discloses a corresponding number and a wakeup operation.); and
logically remapping the disabled first core to the enabled second core (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0025], swapping one core for another, which discloses logically remapping.); and
logically disconnecting the disabled first core such that the disabled first core is …unavailable for performing processing tasks (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0050], turning off the power supply to inactive cores, which logically disconnects the cores and renders them unavailable for performing processing tasks.).
Penzes does not explicitly disclose the aforementioned disabled core is not logically mapped and is not visible to an operating system.
However, in the same field of endeavor (e.g., core management) Varma discloses:
cores that are not logically mapped and are not visible to an operating system (Varma discloses, at ¶ [0129], cores that are not mapped and are hidden from the OS.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Penzes to include Varma’s mapping as one way to simplify control of inactive cores.
Regarding claim 19, Penzes discloses the elements of claim 18, as discussed above. Penzes also discloses:
swapping out the selected at least one enabled core for the selected at least one disabled core comprises: disabling, via power gating, the selected at least one enabled core (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0050], turning off the power supply to inactive cores.);
enabling, via a wake up operation, the selected at least one disabled core corresponding to a number of the disabled selected at least one enabled core (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0025], swapping one core for another, which discloses a corresponding number and a wakeup operation.); and
logically remapping the disabled selected at least one enabled core to the enabled selected at least one disabled core (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0025], swapping one core for another, which discloses logically remapping.); and
logically disconnecting the disabled selected at least one enabled core such that the disabled selected at least one enabled core is …unavailable for performing processing tasks (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0050], turning off the power supply to inactive cores, which logically disconnects the cores and renders them unavailable for performing processing tasks.).
Penzes does not explicitly disclose the aforementioned disabled core is not logically mapped and is not visible to an operating system.
However, in the same field of endeavor (e.g., core management) Varma discloses:
cores that are not logically mapped and are not visible to an operating system (Varma discloses, at ¶ [0129], cores that are not mapped and are hidden from the OS.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Penzes to include Varma’s mapping as one way to simplify control of inactive cores.
Claims 8-10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penzes in view of US Publication No. 2014/0344599 by Branover et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Branover”).
Regarding claim 8, Penzes discloses the elements of claim 4, as discussed above. Penzes also discloses:
swapping the enabled cores for the disabled cores (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0025], swapping one core for another, which discloses swapping enabled cores for disabled cores.).
Penzes does not explicitly disclose the aforementioned swapping is invisible to an operating system.
However, in the same field of endeavor (e.g., power management) Branover discloses:
state transitions invisible to the operating system (Branover discloses, at ¶ [0026], transitioning in a manner invisible to the OS.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Penzes to include transitions that are invisible to the OS, as disclosed by Branover, in order to provide shorter wakeup times. See Branover, ¶ [0026].
Regarding claim 9, Penzes discloses the elements of claim 4, as discussed above. Penzes also discloses:
the controller is configured to …swap out the enabled cores for the disabled cores (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0025], swapping one core for another, which discloses swapping enabled cores for disabled cores.).
Penzes does not explicitly disclose the aforementioned swapping is periodic.
However, in the same field of endeavor (e.g., power management) Branover discloses:
periodic state transitions (Branover discloses, at Figure 3 and related description, state transitions based on a predetermined time period).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Penzes to include periodic transitions, as disclosed by Branover, in order to improve performance by controlling the frequency of transitions.
Regarding claim 10, Penzes discloses the elements of claim 9, as discussed above. Penzes also discloses:
the periodic swapping is based on the enabled cores reaching an aging milestone (Penzes discloses, at Figure 3 and related description, swapping is based on reaching a threshold, i.e., aging milestone.).
Regarding claim 16, Penzes discloses the elements of claim 12, as discussed above. Penzes also discloses:
the controller is configured to … swap out enabled cores for disabled cores (Penzes discloses, at ¶ [0025], swapping one core for another, which discloses swapping enabled cores for disabled cores.).
Penzes does not explicitly disclose the aforementioned swapping is periodic.
However, in the same field of endeavor (e.g., power management) Branover discloses:
periodic state transitions (Branover discloses, at Figure 3 and related description, state transitions based on a predetermined time period).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Penzes to include periodic transitions, as disclosed by Branover, in order to improve performance by controlling the frequency of transitions.
Regarding claim 17, Penzes discloses the elements of claim 16, as discussed above. Penzes also discloses:
the periodic swapping is based on at least one of the enabled cores reaching an aging milestone or a system reboot (Penzes discloses, at Figure 3 and related description, swapping is based on reaching a threshold, i.e., aging milestone.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penzes in view of Branover in view of US Publication No. 2019/0188001 by Mehra et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Mehra”).
Regarding claim 11, Penzes discloses the elements of claim 9, as discussed above. Penzes does not explicitly disclose the periodic swapping is based on a device reboot.
However, in the same field of endeavor (e.g., core aging) Mehra discloses:
core reassignment based on reboot (Mehra discloses, at ¶ [0047], core reassignment on reboot.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Penzes to include using reboot as a trigger, as disclosed by Mehra, in order to increase flexibility by providing an additional method for distributing aging effects. See Mehra, ¶ [0013].
Response to Arguments
On page 6 of the response filed March 9, 2026 (“response”), the Applicant argues, “The Office Action alleges that the amended claims 1-6 and 8-21 of the response filed October 21, 2025 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed. Although Applicant respectfully disagrees, Applicant respectfully submits that the amendments herein obviate this requirement.”
In view of the amendments included in the response, the requirement for restriction is withdrawn.
On page 6 of the response the Applicant argues, “The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for allegedly not showing every features of the invention specified in the claims. Applicant respectfully submits that the amendments herein obviate the objections. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the objections.”
Though fully considered, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments neither cancel the objected to limitations from the claims nor show them in the drawings. Accordingly, the Applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
On page 6 of the response the Applicant argues, “Independent claim 1 is amended herein to recite, inter alia, "detect a fault of the at least one enabled core," and "the total aging value corresponds to faults," which is supported by at least paragraphs [0043] and [0046]-[0048] of the originally filed specification. Penzes is silent regarding any "fault of [a] core."”
Though fully considered, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Penzes discloses that aging causes a processor to function improperly, e.g., by slowing down and eventually failing. See, e.g., ¶ [0021] et seq. This discloses detecting faults and that the total aging value corresponds to the faults. Accordingly, the Applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
On page 7 of the response the Applicant argues the remaining claims are patentable for similar reasons to those discussed above.
Though fully considered, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The reasons set forth in the remarks and rejections presented above, including those regarding the independent claims, are applicable to these claims.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN DOMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5677. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30am-6pm Eastern Time.
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 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.
/SHAWN DOMAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183