CTNF 18/398,811 CTNF 87511 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-01-aia AIA 07-03-01-r-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the. Claims 1-20 are pending. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. Regarding claims 1-20 , under Step 2A claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more. Under Step 2A (prong 1) , and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites a “A computer-implemented method comprising… scheduling a plurality of tasks across at least one physical core of the plurality of physical cores based at least in part on the wear metric of each physical core of the plurality of physical cores (mental process of a person making a judgement to select a physical core to execute some tasks on a computer) ; These limitations, as drafted in such high level of generality, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind with aid of a pen and paper (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.b). For example, as mapped by the examiner above, the various limitations in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing the limitations with the aid of pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls with the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Under Step 2A (prong 2) and Step 2B claim 1 does contain additional elements of: obtaining a wear metric for each physical core of a plurality of physical cores of at least one integrated circuit, wherein the wear metric is indicative of a physical condition of each physical core. However, when evaluated either individually or in combination, they do not integrate the above-mentioned abstract idea into practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the exception itself. In particular the additional element of “ a plurality of physical cores of at least one integrated circuit” cited above are recited in high level of generality (i.e. as a generic multicore processor) such that, either alone or in combination, it amounts to nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of “ obtaining a wear metric for each physical core … wherein the wear metric is indicative of a physical condition of each physical core” are recited, in high level of generality (i.e. extra-solution activity of data gathering, by a person, of wear metric of processor cores). They amount to nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)). As such, either alone or in combination, they amount to nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception/abstract idea to a particular technological environment and insignificant extra solution activities and thus does not integrate the judicial exception/abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the judicial exception/abstract idea, identified above, is not integrated into a practical application nor does the claim include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception/abstract idea. As such, the claim is not patent eligible. Claims 2, 3 and 6-8 are also not patent eligible because they recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. In particular, these claims provided additional details of the scheduling (mental judgement) that a person can make and details of some mental evaluation that the person can make in order to make the determination (e.g. the various “ identifying…” steps of claims 2, 3, 6 and 8; or “ removing… and adding… ” steps of claim 7). As such, claims 2, 3 and 6-8 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Claims 2, 3 and 6-8 do not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, these dependent claims are not patent eligible. Claims 4, 5, 9 and 10 are not patent eligible because they recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. In particular, this claim provided additional details of the scheduling (mental judgement) that a person can make. As such, claims 4, 5, 9 and 10 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Claims 4, 5, 9 and 10 contain additional elements of “ accessing a history of performance variation for each physical core of the plurality of physical cores ” (claim 4); “ wherein the performance variation comprises at least one of: a voltage variation over time, or a temperature variation over time ” (claim 5); “ logging at least one real-time performance metric for the at least one physical core upon the at least one physical core executing the plurality of tasks; and updating a history of performance variation for each physical core based at least in part on the at least one real-time performance metric ” (claim 9); “ accessing a history of utilization for each physical core of the plurality of physical cores ” (claim 10) . Under step 2A (prong 2) and 2B, these additional element of claims 4, 5, 9 and 10, when considered both individually or as a whole, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Because these additional element are recited, in high level of generality (i.e. as different information that a person can collect and write down) such that it amounts to nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these dependent claims are not patent eligible. Claims 11-19 are system versions of method claims 1-10 (where claim 16 corresponds to claim 7 which also contains claim 6), and they recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-10 such that similar step 2A (prong 1) analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Under step 2A (prong 2) and 2B , claim 11-19 recite additional elements. Part of these additional elements include those that have already been determined (please see analysis provided for claims 1-10 above) to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. However, claim 11-19 also recite further additional elements of “ one or more circuits configured to… ” These further additional elements are recited in high level of generality (i.e. as a generic multiprocessor system) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea), see details in MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the abstract idea, identified above, is not integrated into a practical application in any of the claims, nor do the claims include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 11-19 are not patent eligible. Claim 20 is a product version of method claim 1, and it recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar step 2A (prong 1) analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Under step 2A (prong 2) and 2B , claim 20 recites additional elements. Part of these additional elements include those that have already been determined (please see analysis provided for claim 1 above) to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. However, claim 20 also recites further additional elements of “ non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising one or more computer- executable instructions, wherein the one or more computer-executable instructions, when executed by at least one execution circuit, cause the at least one execution circuit to carry out a method comprising… ” These further additional elements are recited in high level of generality (i.e. as a generic multiprocessor system with memory) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea), see details in MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the abstract idea, identified above, is not integrated into a practical application in any of the claims, nor do the claims include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 20 is not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. The following claim languages are not clear and indefinite: As per claims 1, 11 and 20 it is not clear how the “scheduling” is done (e.g. cores that have higher “wear metric” is scheduled; cores that have lower “wear metric” is scheduled). Furthermore, it is not clear only the “one physical core” is used to host the “plurality of tasks”; or if there is a different physical core used to host a different task of the “plurality of tasks” The dependent claims do not cure the 112(b) issues of their respective parent claims. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as those presented for their respective parent claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-5, 8-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (U.S. Pat. 10218779). As per claim 1, Cheng teaches the invention as claimed including a computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining a wear metric for each physical core of a plurality of physical cores of at least one integrated circuit, wherein the wear metric is indicative of a physical condition of each physical core (Fig. 5, col 4 lines 12-26); and scheduling a plurality of tasks across at least one physical core of the plurality of physical cores based at least in part on the wear metric of each physical core of the plurality of physical cores (Fig. 5 col 3 lines 49-67, col 4 48-67). As per claim 2 Cheng teaches wherein: the method further comprises identifying at least one assignable physical core of the plurality of physical cores that satisfies at least one wear metric criteria related to the physical condition, based at least in part on the wear metric of each physical core (col 4 lines 40-67, col 6 lines 4-15 processing cores with less wear are preferentially selected for assignment of services ); and scheduling the plurality of tasks comprises scheduling the plurality of tasks across the at least one assignable physical core (col 6 lines 16-28, col 3 line 59 – col 4 line 7: services are assigned to processor cores with less wear ). As per claim 3 Cheng teaches wherein the at least one wear metric criteria comprises at least one of: a threshold wear metric value, or a threshold rank position in a ranked list that orders the plurality of physical cores according to the wear metric of each physical core (col 4 lines 52-67 processor cores are assigned services based on a defined ordered based on wear levels of the processor cores ). As per claim 4 Cheng teaches further comprising: accessing a history of performance variation for each physical core of the plurality of physical cores; and scheduling the plurality of tasks according to the wear metric for each physical core of the plurality of physical cores based at least in part on the history of performance variation for each physical core (col 4 lines 12-33, col 5 line 61 – col 6 line 3 wear level data are accumulated over time, and the wear level data can be associated with operating temperature associated with each processing cores , or different ages across different processor cores). As per claim 5 Cheng teaches wherein the performance variation comprises at least one of: a voltage variation over time, or a temperature variation over time (col 4 lines 27-33 operating temperatures of different processor cores are accumulated , these temperatures would necessarily vary over a time period that they are accumulated). As per claim 8 Cheng teaches further comprising: identifying a primary physical core of the plurality of physical cores, the primary physical core being mapped to a primary logical core; and remapping a different physical core of the plurality of physical cores to the primary logical core based at least in part on a primary physical core wear metric not satisfying at least one wear metric criteria, the primary physical core wear metric being associated with the primary physical core based on the wear metric of each physical core (Fig. 4, col 6 lines 21-67, col 7 lines 3-17 logical cores of physical cores are mapped to different real cores ; the mapping balances wear level of the real cores ; this means that any logical core can be initially mapped to a first real core, but based on wear level balancing logic core can be remapped to a different second real core). As per claim 9 Cheng teaches further comprising: logging at least one real-time performance metric for the at least one physical core upon the at least one physical core executing the plurality of tasks; and updating a history of performance variation for each physical core based at least in part on the at least one real-time performance metric (col 4 lines 13-33, col 5 lines 40-52, col 6 line 58 – col 7 line 17 wear data of different processor cores that are accumulated over time can be based on monitored operating temperature or performance information that server computers that hosts the processor cores provide to wear leveling controller , so that assignment of processor cores can be done any time as need; this means that the monitored information must contain some real-time information). As per claim 10 Cheng teaches further comprising: accessing a history of utilization for each physical core of the plurality of physical cores; and scheduling the plurality of tasks according to the wear metric for each physical core based on the history of performance variation for each physical core and the history of utilization for each physical core (col 4 lines 13-33, col 5 lines 40-52, col 6 line 58 – col 7 line 17 wear data of different processor cores that are accumulated over time can be based on monitored operating temperature or performance information that server computers that hosts the processor cores provide to wear leveling controller , so that assignment of processor cores can be done any time as need; this means that the monitored information must contain some historical information). As per claims 11-15 and 17-19, they are system versions of method claims 1-5 and 8-10. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons, mutatis mutandis, as those presented for claims 1-5 and 8-10, respectively. As per claim 20 it is a product version of method claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons, mutatis mutandis, as those presented for claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 6, 7 and 16 is rejected under 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (U.S. Pat. 10218779) in view of Varma et al (U.S. Pub. 2018/0365022). As per claim 6 Cheng teaches further comprising: identifying an assignable physical core set comprising at least one assignable physical core of the plurality of physical cores (col 4 lines 40-67, col 6 lines 4-15 processing cores with less wear are preferentially selected for assignment of services, these cores are a set of assignable cores); and scheduling the plurality of tasks across the at least one assignable physical core of the assignable physical core set (col 6 lines 16-28, col 3 line 59 – col 4 line 7: services are assigned to processor cores with less wear ). Cheng does not explicitly teach identification of a reserve physical core set comprising at least one reserve physical core. However Varma teaches identification of a reserve physical core set comprising at least one reserve physical core ([0022], [0026], [0038], [0039] core tracker tracks ONLINE or OFFLINE states of different processor cores; cores in OFFLINE state are in a reserved state since they can be brought online dynamically as needed). It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Varma and Cheng because both are directed towards scheduling of processor cores. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Varma into that of Cheng because Varma provides a way to schedule processor cores to improve efficiency and power usage ([0018]). As per claim 7 Varma teaches further comprising: removing the at least one assignable physical core from the assignable physical core set in response to at least one particular wear metric associated with the at least one assignable physical core, the at least one particular wear metric not satisfying at least one wear metric criteria; and adding the at least one reserve physical core to the assignable physical core set ([0030], [0033], [0037], [0039] wear threshold of a core in ONLINE state is exceeded, the core can be brought to OFFLINE state ; and when that happens one or more previously OFFLINE cores can be now brought to ONLINE state so work can be assigned to them). As per claim 16 it is a system version of method claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons, mutatis mutandis, as those presented for claim 7. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1745. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 6pm. 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, James Trujillo can be reached on (571) 272-3677. 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. /BING ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151 Application/Control Number: 18/398,811 Page 2 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 18/398,811 Page 3 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 18/398,811 Page 4 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 18/398,811 Page 7 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 18/398,811 Page 9 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 18/398,811 Page 10 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 18/398,811 Page 11 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 18/398,811 Page 12 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 18/398,811 Page 13 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 18/398,811 Page 14 Art Unit: 2151
Prosecution Insights