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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 11/01/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 1, item 106 is not “VPU” but rather “NPU” as stated in the Specification. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “offload module” in claims 1-3 and 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-3, 7-11, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20230105810 A1).
Referring to claims 1 and 9, Yang discloses an information handling system comprising: a central processing unit; a neural processing unit; and an offload module to communicate with the central processing unit and with the neural processing unit, the offload module to:
receive an inference container including multiple inference models and metadata associated with the inference models; ([0057] of Yang, “The metadata MD may be information preset for each subgraph, and may include preference driving information, oriented task information, tensor information, and expected latency. The preference driving information may be, for example, a user mode requested by a user, and the user mode may include a power saving mode, a boost mode, and/or the like. In addition, the preference driving information may include preferred hardware information when operating a subgraph corresponding to the metadata MD. Among the computing hardware (such as the NPU, GPU, and/or CPU), preferred (e.g., preferential) computing hardware for performing an operation for each learning model may be preset (and/or otherwise determined) as metadata MD. In addition, the operation throughput may be different for each subgraph, and preferred computing hardware depending on the operation throughput may be preset as the metadata MD.”) and
based on the metadata, determine whether a quality of service for the inference models may be met by the neural processing unit; ([0065] of Yang, “In step S10, the neural network module 120 may generate a resource determination trigger RDT corresponding to the target subgraph. The neural network module 120 may output a resource determination trigger RDT (e g , immediately before performing an operation on the target subgraph). The resource determination trigger RDT that is output before an operation is performed without considering expected latency may be referred to as a basic resource determination trigger RDT.”)
in response to the quality of service being met by the neural processing unit, the neural processing unit to execute the inference models; and in response to the quality of service not being met by the neural processing unit, the central processing unit to execute the inference models. ([0099]-[0101] of Yang, in determination that the hardware is in computer-bound state, e.g., cpu operated state, set certain hardware resources, such as if the hardware is in computing-bound data, then process using cpu, otherwise process using NPU or GPU. Even though Yang does not disclose in response to quality of service being met or not met by the NPU, but a person of ordinary skills in the art would have modified the conditioning of performance of hardware based on NPU with conditioning of performance of hardware based on CPU in order to allocated desired hardware resources for the tasks)
Referring to claims 2 and 10, Yang discloses the information handling system of claim 1, wherein the information handling system further comprises a scheduler in communication with the offload module, wherein prior to the execution of the inference models in the neural processing unit, the scheduler to: receive a schedule neural processing unit request from the offload module; and in response to the schedule neural processing unit request, schedule the inference models for execution in the neural processing unit. ([0099]-[0101] of Yang, in determination that the hardware is in computer-bound state, e.g., cpu operated state, set certain hardware resources, such as if the hardware is in computing-bound data, then process using cpu, otherwise process using NPU or GPU. Even though Yang does not disclose in response to quality of service being met or not met by the NPU, but a person of ordinary skills in the art would have modified the conditioning of performance of hardware based on NPU with conditioning of performance of hardware based on CPU in order to allocated desired hardware resources for the tasks)
Referring to claims 3 and 11, Yang discloses the information handling system of claim 1, wherein the information handling system further comprises a scheduler in communication with the offload module, wherein prior to the execution of the inference models in the central processing unit, the scheduler to: receive a schedule central processing unit request from the offload module; and in response to the schedule central processing unit request, schedule the inference models for execution in the central processing unit. ([0099]-[0101] of Yang, in determination that the hardware is in computer-bound state, e.g., cpu operated state, set certain hardware resources, such as if the hardware is in computing-bound data, then process using cpu, otherwise process using NPU or GPU. Even though Yang does not disclose in response to quality of service being met or not met by the NPU, but a person of ordinary skills in the art would have modified the conditioning of performance of hardware based on NPU with conditioning of performance of hardware based on CPU in order to allocated desired hardware resources for the tasks)
Referring to claims 7 and 15 and 20, Yang discloses the information handling system of claim 1, the execution of the inference models in the neural processing unit enables the central processing unit to perform other operations. ([0099]-[0101] of Yang, in determination that the hardware is in computer-bound state, e.g., cpu operated state, set certain hardware resources, such as if the hardware is in computing-bound data, then process using cpu, otherwise process using NPU or GPU.)
Referring to claims 8 and 16, Yang discloses the information handling system of claim 1, wherein the quality of service indicates a particular time interval for execution of the inference models, a power performance level, and a latency. ([0065] of Yang, “In step S10, the neural network module 120 may generate a resource determination trigger RDT corresponding to the target subgraph. The neural network module 120 may output a resource determination trigger RDT (e g , immediately before performing an operation on the target subgraph). The resource determination trigger RDT that is output before an operation is performed without considering expected latency may be referred to as a basic resource determination trigger RDT.”)
Referring to claim 17, Yang discloses a method comprising: receiving, by an offload module of an information handling system, an inference container including multiple inference models and metadata associated with the inference models; based on the metadata, determining whether a quality of service for the inference models may be met by a neural processing unit of the information handling system; if the quality of service is met in the neural processing unit, then: providing a schedule neural processing unit request to a scheduler of the information handling system; scheduling, by the scheduler, the inference models for execution in the neural processing unit to execute the inference models; and executing, by the neural processing unit, the inference models; and if the quality of service is not met in the neural processing unit, then: providing a schedule central processing unit request to a scheduler of the information handling system; scheduling, by the scheduler, the inference models for execution in the central processing unit to execute the inference models; and executing, by the central processing unit, the inference models. (see citations of claims 1-3)
Claims 4-6, 12-14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20230105810 A1) in further view of Motamedi et al (US 11935416 B1).
Referring to claims 4 and 12, Yang discloses the information handling system of claim 1. Yang does not specifically disclose further comprising a memory to store telemetry data associated with the information handling system.
However, Motamedi discloses a memory to store telemetry data associated with the information handling system. (col. 43, line 53-65 of Motamedi, telemetry data)
Yang and Motamedi are analogous art because both references concern using different hardware for different tasks. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yang’s NN model that uses different hardware resources to process data with using NN model using telemetry data as taught by Motamedi. The motivation for doing so would have been allocated desired hardware resources for the tasks.
Referring to claims 5 and 13 and 19, Yang in view of Motamedia discloses the information handling system of claim 4, wherein the execution of the inference models by the neural processing unit includes the neural processing unit to provide the telemetry data as an input to the inference models. (col. 51, line 56-col. 52, line 20 of Motamedi)
Referring to claims 6 and 14 and 18, Yang discloses the information handling system of claim 1. Yang does not specifically disclose wherein the offload module is an extension to an operating system of the information handling system.
However, Motamedi discloses wherein the offload module is an extension to an operating system of the information handling system. (col. 82, lines 57-67 of Motamedi)
Yang and Motamedi are analogous art because both references concern using different hardware for different tasks. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yang’s NN model that uses different hardware resources to process data with using NN model using telemetry data as taught by Motamedi. The motivation for doing so would have been allocated desired hardware resources for the tasks.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Bapst et al (US 20240195867 A1): intelligent cloud-edge resource management. An end device may provide edge nodes of an edge computing system with network link information, which may enable the edge nodes to schedule and distribute task workloads more effectively, providing greater performance, power, security, and mission-critical network availability. For example, if the end device transmits a processing task request to a first edge node, the first edge node may assign the processing task to a second edge node according to the network link information. Additionally, or alternatively, the end device may transmit an indication of processing task parameters to one or more edge nodes and may receive an indication of an estimated completion time of the processing task from the one or more edge nodes. Accordingly, the end device may assign the processing task to an edge node with the lowest completion time.
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://;www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e- mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIMEI JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached at 571-270-1006. 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.
/HAIMEI JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights