DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 1-5, 8-12, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0034307), Ragland et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0136823), and Bourdev et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0018461).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, Singh discloses a system (Figure 1, item 140) comprising:
a network interface (Figure 1, item 144, paragraph 0021); and
circuitry configured to:
receive, over a network (Figure 1, item 180) from a physically distinct client device (Figure 1, item 160), a request for recommended operating settings via the network interface (paragraph 0019; i.e., the slave device 160 can request the server 140 to provide recommended operating settings);
generate a response to the request (paragraph 0019; i.e., the profile 152 and corresponding response to the slave device 160 is generated after the slave device 160 requests the operating parameters from the server 140), wherein the response includes an operating settings recommendation profile (Figure 1, item 152, paragraph 0018), the operating settings recommendation profile specifying hardware-level operating parameters including at least one of a clock frequency or a power supply voltage (paragraph 0017; i.e., the profiles 152 that are stored in the server are duplicates [see paragraph 0020] of the different settings stored in the master device 120, which include a CPU clock speed/frequency); and
send the response to the client device via the network interface (paragraphs 0018 and 0020).
Singh does not expressly disclose that the request is an overclocking request;
wherein the requested operating settings are overclocking settings;
wherein the overclocking request includes system configuration information of the client device identifying at least one hardware component of the client device;
wherein the response is selected or generated for the client device based at least in part on the system configuration information included in the overclocking request.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., processor modification techniques), Ragland teaches that the request is an overclocking request (paragraph 0030); and
wherein the requested operating settings are overclocking settings (paragraphs 0030-0032; i.e., processor overclocking settings in the form of a core clock ratio can be requested).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Ragland’s teachings of processor modification techniques with the teachings of Singh, for the purpose of enhancing the security of the processor overclocking requests. More specifically, modifications to these configuration settings can adversely affect system lifetime and can even lead to catastrophic failures (Ragland, paragraph 0015). By preventing a computer from being able to directly change these settings, it would prevent an unauthorized user who has gained access to the computer from causing failure of the computer.
Also in the same field of endeavor (e.g., client settings modification techniques), Bourdev teaches wherein the request includes system configuration information of the client device (Figure 1, item 110) identifying at least one hardware component of the client device (paragraphs 0028, 0032, 0034, and 0053);
wherein the response is selected or generated for the client device based at least in part on the system configuration information included in the request (paragraph 0032; i.e., the cloud service system 130 provides a response including operating settings [settings to implement a particular type of encoding/decoding filter] based on hardware configuration information included in the request from the client 110).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Bourdev’s teachings of client settings modification techniques with the teachings of Singh, for the purpose of allowing the server to know what the maximum and minimum settings for the particular client device are because it will have knowledge of the hardware capabilities of each device. This would allow the server to provide optimal settings to each client device.
Regarding Claims 2 and 9, Bourdev teaches wherein the system configuration information comprises at least one of a processor model identifier, a processor identifier, a number of processor cores, a memory device type (paragraph 0028), a memory device identifier, a motherboard type, or cooling subsystem configuration information of the client device.
Regarding Claims 3 and 10, Bourdev teaches wherein the system configuration information comprises a plurality of parameters including a cooling subsystem configuration parameter corresponding to thermal capability, a processor configuration parameter corresponding to processing capability, or a memory configuration parameter corresponding to memory capability of the client device (paragraph 0028).
Regarding Claims 4 and 11, Ragland teaches wherein the operating settings recommendation profile comprises settings selected or generated for the client device that exceed manufacturer-specified default operating settings for one or more components of the client device while continuing to provide stability for the client device (paragraph 0014).
Regarding Claims 5 and 12, Bourdev teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to retrieve the operating settings recommendation profile from a database comprising a plurality of operating settings recommendation profiles, each associated with a respective system configuration comprising the hardware configuration information (Figure 1, item 140, paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 15, Singh discloses a system (Figure 1) comprising:
circuitry, of a client (Figure 1, item 160), configured to:
generate a request for recommended operating settings (paragraph 0019; i.e., the slave device 160 can request the server 140 to provide recommended operating settings);
send the request over a network (Figure 1, item 180) to a server (Figure 1, item 140) physically distinct from the client (Figure 1);
receive, from the server via the network, a given recommendation profile (Figure 1, item 152, paragraphs 0017-0018 and 0020; i.e., the profiles 152 that are stored in the server are duplicates [see paragraph 0020] of the different settings stored in the master device 120, which include a CPU clock speed/frequency; one of these profiles 152 is sent to the slave device 160 in response to the request from the slave device 160);
the given overclocking recommendation profile specifying hardware-level operating parameters including at least one of a clock frequency or a power supply voltage (paragraph 0017; i.e., the profiles 152 that are stored in the server are duplicates [see paragraph 0020] of the different settings stored in the master device 120, which include a CPU clock speed/frequency); and
update one or more operating settings of the system based on the given recommendation profile (paragraph 0020; i.e., the received profile 152 settings are applied to the slave device 160).
Singh does not expressly disclose that the request is an overclocking request;
wherein the recommended operating settings are overclocking settings and the given recommendation profile is an overclocking recommendation profile;
wherein the overclocking request including system configuration information of the device identifying at least one hardware component of the system;
wherein the given overclocking recommendation profile is selected or generated for the system based at least in part on the system configuration information included in the overclocking request.
In the same field of endeavor, Ragland teaches that the request is an overclocking request (paragraph 0030);
wherein the recommended operating settings are overclocking settings and the given recommendation profile is an overclocking recommendation profile (paragraphs 0030-0032; i.e., processor overclocking settings in the form of a core clock ratio can be requested).
Also in the same field of endeavor, Bourdev teaches wherein the request including system configuration information of the device identifying at least one hardware component of the system (Figure 1, item 110, paragraphs 0028, 0032, 0034, and 0053);
wherein the given recommendation profile is selected or generated for the system based at least in part on the system configuration information included in the request (paragraph 0032; i.e., the cloud service system 130 provides a response including operating settings [settings to implement a particular type of encoding/decoding filter] based on hardware configuration information included in the request from the client 110).
The motivation discussed above with regards to Claim 1 applies equally as well to Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16, Ragland teaches wherein the given overclocking recommendation profile comprises settings selected or generated for the system that exceed manufacturer-specified default operating settings for the system while continuing to provide stability for the system (paragraphs 0001 and 0014; i.e., overclocking increases the processor frequency above the manufacturer-rated clock frequency).
Regarding Claim 17, Ragland teaches wherein the given overclocking recommendation profile comprises a recommended power supply voltage and recommended clock frequency associated with a particular processor identified in the overclocking request (paragraphs 0020, 0025, and 0037).
Regarding Claim 19, Ragland teaches wherein the overclocking request comprises at least one hardware-identifying parameter selected from: a processor model identifier, a processor identifier, a number of processor cores, a memory device type, a memory device identifier, a motherboard type, cooling subsystem configuration information, a serial identification number of one or more processing circuits of the system (paragraphs 0030-0031; i.e., the user request can include information [e.g., an identification number] about which processor core the overclocking request is for), and an indication specifying a type of cooling system of the system, and an indication specifying a number and type of memory devices of the system.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh, Ragland, and Bourdev as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Pawar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0293291).
Regarding Claims 6 and 13, Singh, Ragland, and Bourdev disclose including system configuration information included in the request (Bourdev, paragraphs 0028, 0032, 0034, and 0053).
Singh, Ragland, and Bourdev do not expressly disclose wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate an index based at least in part on the system configuration information included in the overclocking request; and retrieve the operating settings recommendation profile from a database using the generated index.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., overclocking techniques), Pawar discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate an index based at least in part on the overclocking request; and retrieve the operating settings recommendation profile from a database using the generated index (Figure 2, item 216, paragraph 0026; i.e., the database 216 contains overclocking settings indexed by the master device 102a as well as each of the slave devices 102b).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Pawar’s teachings of overclocking techniques with the teachings of Singh, Ragland, and Bourdev, for the purpose of providing a faster mechanism to select from the potential settings, thereby reducing the amount of time required to provide the operating settings recommendation profiles to the client device.
Claims 7, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh, Ragland, and Bourdev as applied to claims 1, 8, and 16 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0188769).
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, Singh, Ragland, and Bourdev disclose including system configuration information included in the request (Bourdev, paragraphs 0028, 0032, 0034, and 0053).
Singh, Ragland, and Bourdev do not expressly disclose wherein responsive to receipt of the overclocking request, the circuitry is configured to generate the operating settings recommendation profile based on one or more simulations, predictive models, or historical performance data.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., overclocking techniques), Chen teaches wherein responsive to receipt of the overclocking request, the circuitry is configured to generate the operating settings recommendation profile based on one or more simulations (paragraph 0033; i.e., prior to overclocking the memory 160, simulations occur to ensure it will operate stably), predictive models, or historical performance data.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Chen’s teachings of overclocking techniques with the teachings of Singh, Ragland, and Bourdev, for the purpose of ensuring that the resulting overclocking would allow the computer system to operate stably.
Regarding Claim 18, Chen teaches wherein the given overclocking recommendation profile comprises a recommended power supply voltage and recommended clock frequency for at least one memory device in the system (Figure 1, item 160, paragraph 0033).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh, Ragland, and Bourdev as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Cheng et al. (U.S. Patent Number 10,218,779).
Regarding Claim 20, Singh, Ragland, and Bourdev do not expressly disclose wherein the overclocking request comprises at least one reliability-related parameter selected from: an age of one or more processing circuits of the system, and log data comprising indications of hardware-related errors that have occurred within the system.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., overclocking techniques), Cheng teaches wherein the overclocking request comprises at least one reliability-related parameter selected from: an age of one or more processing circuits of the system (Column 5, line 58 - Column 6, line 3; i.e., the wear leveling controller 110 receives age data about each of the processors 204; when combined with Ragland, this would result it being in the overclocking request) and log data comprising indications of errors that have occurred within the system.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Cheng’s teachings of overclocking techniques with the teachings of Singh, Ragland, and Bourdev, for the purpose of helping the server decide whether granting the overclocking request would likely lead to processor failure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because each reference discloses a system for generating overclocking recommendations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 FAISAL M ZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm, alternate Fridays.
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 J. Jung can be reached at 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.
/FAISAL M ZAMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights