DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to claims filed 1 March 2024.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
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 § 101
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (mental process) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, in step 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites a method that uses estimated power and temperature to proactively manage system temperature before a program has begun execution. A method is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In step 2A, prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for recitation of generic computer components:
i. “calculate an estimated power consumption and a resulting temperature profile of a program or workload over time” (a person can mentally calculate, or determine an estimated power consumption and temperature profile by simply evaluating power and temperature data and making a judgement of patterns or trends in power consumption and temperature (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
ii. “proactively manage a system temperature” (a person can mentally manage a system temperature by simply making a judgement to perform mental processes such as task rescheduling or resource reallocation (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
In step 2A, prong 2 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
iii. “A method to improve operation of a compiler of a deterministic processor” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
iv. “which is calculated before the execution of the program on the deterministic processor using information about the workload” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
v. “before the program has begun execution, to minimize temperature excursions outside a specific safe range” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
Since the claim does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is “directed” to an abstract idea.
In step 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined through reanalysis of the following limitations considered in step 2A prong 2, that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
iii. “A method to improve operation of a compiler of a deterministic processor” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
iv. “which is calculated before the execution of the program on the deterministic processor using information about the workload” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
v. “before the program has begun execution, to minimize temperature excursions outside a specific safe range” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, in step 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites a method that uses estimated power and temperature to proactively manage system temperature before a program has begun execution. A method is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In step 2A, prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for recitation of generic computer components:
i. “determining…an estimated power consumption and a resulting temperature profile of a scheduled workload over time” (a person can mentally calculate, or determine an estimated power consumption and temperature profile by simply evaluating power and temperature data and making a judgement of patterns or trends in power consumption and temperature (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
ii. “facilitating…mitigation of a temperature excursion that exceeds a defined temperature threshold” (a person can mentally mitigate a temperature excursion by simply evaluating threshold temperature and making a judgement to perform mental processes such as task rescheduling or resource reallocation (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
In step 2A, prong 2 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
iii. “by a compiler of a deterministic processor” (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
iv. “wherein the determining and the facilitating are performed before an execution of the scheduled workload on the deterministic processor” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
Since the claim does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is “directed” to an abstract idea.
In step 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined through reanalysis of the following limitations considered in step 2A prong 2, that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
iii. “by a compiler of a deterministic processor” (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
iv. “wherein the determining and the facilitating are performed before an execution of the scheduled workload on the deterministic processor” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the additional element “extracting a power consumption profile and an associated temperature profile of the scheduled workload from a profile database” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g))), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of retrieving information from memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))).
Regarding claim 4, the additional element “scheduling the execution of the scheduled workload such that a cooling rate is increased from a first cooling rate to a second cooling rate at a defined time” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally schedule execution of a workload by simply making a judgement of when the workload should execution (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
Regarding claim 5, the additional element “the defined time is a time prior to a temperature of the deterministic processor reaching the defined temperature threshold” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 6, the additional element “balancing energy consumption and performance of the deterministic processor” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 7, the additional element “determining, by the compiler and during the execution of the scheduled workload, that a power consumed by the deterministic processor satisfies a thermal design power threshold” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally determine power consumption satisfies a threshold by simply evaluating power consumption and making a judgement of whether or not it satisfies a threshold (MPEP 2106.04(a))). Further the additional element “reallocating, by the compiler, resource use within the deterministic processor, wherein the reallocating facilitates maintaining a temperature of the deterministic processor within a defined narrow operating range” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally reallocate resource use by simply evaluating current resource use and making a judgement of a new resource allocation that satisfies temperature constraints (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
Regarding claim 8, the additional element “the reallocating comprises reordering execution of a plurality of operations within the deterministic processor” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally reallocate resource use by simply evaluating current operation orders and making a judgement of a new order of operations that satisfies temperature constraints (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
Regarding claim 9, the additional element “the reallocating comprises dividing the scheduled workload into smaller chunks” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally reallocate resource use by simply evaluating a current workload and making a judgment of divisions or partitions to be made (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
Regarding claim 10, the additional element “the reallocating comprises selectively inserting lower power operations of the scheduled workload between higher power operations of the scheduled workload during the execution” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally reallocate resource use by simply evaluating a current workload and making a judgment of when to schedule low power operations in the workflow(MPEP 2106.04(a))).
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 1-5, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KALYANASUNDARAM et al. Pub. No.: US 2016/0357232 A1 (hereafter KALYANASUNDARAM).
Regarding claim 1, KALYANASUNDARAM teaches:
A method to improve operation of a compiler of a deterministic processor to calculate an estimated power consumption ([0074] In operation 620, processing tasks whose power usage is lower than a predetermined threshold can be filtered out from the query results before determining a future predicted task. [0075] In an embodiment, operation 625 can select a future predicted task with the highest power consumption from among the multiple future processing tasks in the query results (i.e., power consumption of a future predicted task is determined and compared to a threshold)) and a resulting temperature profile of a program or workload over time, which is calculated before the execution of the program on the deterministic processor using information about the workload ([0045] Current machine state 205 temperature T.sub.C is an input to feed-forward thermal prediction model 210. Additional inputs to feed-forward prediction model 210 are a start time of a future processing task 600 having an initial processing device temperature T.sub.i for the future task and a list of predicted intervening processing tasks 700, and their associated power usages, between a first predetermined time (e.g. the current time) and the time for starting the future processing task. Operation 700 is described in further detail with reference to FIG. 7, below. The output of the feed-forward model 210 is a predicted thermal state 215 T.sub.P of the processing device 100 at the time that the future processing task is to start (i.e., predicted thermal state of the processing device at the time of the future processing task represents a “temperature profile” of the future processing task)) to proactively manage a system temperature, before the program has begun execution, to minimize temperature excursions outside a specific safe range ([0045] This predicted future thermal state T.sub.P is compared to an initial future state 220 T.sub.i of processing device 100 at the time that the future processing task is to start, to determine whether heat needs to be removed from the processing device 100 before the future task is started. [0051] If the temperature difference ΔT determined in operation 225 indicates that heat removal is required to achieve the future initial state T.sub.i, then in operation 800 processing device 100 can be prepared for the future processing task (i.e., preparing the processing device by removing heat prior to execution of the future processing task to achieve an ideal future temperature represents “proactively managing a system temperature” to minimize temperature exceeding the desired initial future state)).
Regarding claim 2, KALYANASUNDARAM teaches:
A method comprising:
determining, by a compiler of a deterministic processor, an estimated power consumption ([0074] In operation 620, processing tasks whose power usage is lower than a predetermined threshold can be filtered out from the query results before determining a future predicted task. [0075] In an embodiment, operation 625 can select a future predicted task with the highest power consumption from among the multiple future processing tasks in the query results (i.e., power consumption of a future predicted task is determined and compared to a threshold)) and a resulting temperature profile of a scheduled workload over time ([0045] Current machine state 205 temperature T.sub.C is an input to feed-forward thermal prediction model 210. Additional inputs to feed-forward prediction model 210 are a start time of a future processing task 600 having an initial processing device temperature T.sub.i for the future task and a list of predicted intervening processing tasks 700, and their associated power usages, between a first predetermined time (e.g. the current time) and the time for starting the future processing task. Operation 700 is described in further detail with reference to FIG. 7, below. The output of the feed-forward model 210 is a predicted thermal state 215 T.sub.P of the processing device 100 at the time that the future processing task is to start (i.e., predicted thermal state of the processing device at the time of the future processing task represents a “temperature profile” of the future processing task));
facilitating, by the compiler, mitigation of a temperature excursion that exceeds a defined temperature threshold, wherein the determining and the facilitating are performed before an execution of the scheduled workload on the deterministic processor ([0045] This predicted future thermal state T.sub.P is compared to an initial future state 220 T.sub.i of processing device 100 at the time that the future processing task is to start, to determine whether heat needs to be removed from the processing device 100 before the future task is started. [0051] If the temperature difference ΔT determined in operation 225 indicates that heat removal is required to achieve the future initial state T.sub.i, then in operation 800 processing device 100 can be prepared for the future processing task (i.e., preparing the processing device by removing heat prior to execution of the future processing task to achieve an ideal future temperature represents “facilitating mitigation of the temperature excursion”)).
Regarding claim 3, KALYANASUNDARAM further teaches:
extracting a power consumption profile and an associated temperature profile of the scheduled workload from a profile database ([0055] Machine state 300 can further include storing a power consumption rate, measured in Watts per unit of time, Δt, and/or a measured temperature for one or more components such as audio system 320, network 330, cell signal 335, display 340, or storage 345. A power consumption value attributable to a particular component can be multiplied by a duration of a processing task to determine a power usage for the duration for the particular component (i.e., power consumption and temperature values of tasks are stored as machine states and used, or “extracted” in order to determine power usage and temperature states of future tasks)).
Regarding claim 4, KALYANASUNDARAM further teaches:
scheduling the execution of the scheduled workload such that a cooling rate is increased from a first cooling rate to a second cooling rate at a defined time ([0051] If the temperature difference ΔT determined in operation 225 indicates that heat removal is required to achieve the future initial state T.sub.i, then in operation 800 processing device 100 can be prepared for the future processing task. [0092] In operation 820, heat mitigation techniques can include rescheduling one or more background tasks 140 until after the selected future processing task has completed. The rescheduling can be accomplished by thermal state manager 150 requesting that the scheduler reduce heat generated by background processing tasks 140 and the scheduler 122 determining which background processing task(s) to reschedule. In an embodiment, thermal state manager 150 can be a kernel process 123 and can communicate with kernel 120 and scheduler 122 to determine which process(es) should be rescheduled to mitigate generation of heat (i.e., task scheduling is performed to increase cooling to achieve the target preferred temperature)).
Regarding claim 5, KALYANASUNDARAM further teaches:
the defined time is a time prior to a temperature of the deterministic processor reaching the defined temperature threshold ([0092] In operation 820, heat mitigation techniques can include rescheduling one or more background tasks 140 until after the selected future processing task has completed. The rescheduling can be accomplished by thermal state manager 150 requesting that the scheduler reduce heat generated by background processing tasks 140 and the scheduler 122 determining which background processing task(s) to reschedule. In an embodiment, thermal state manager 150 can be a kernel process 123 and can communicate with kernel 120 and scheduler 122 to determine which process(es) should be rescheduled to mitigate generation of heat (i.e., tasks are rescheduled at a time prior to the predicted thermal state exceeding the preferred initial thermal state)).
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 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KALYANASUNDARAM (cited above), in view of SHAH Pub. No.: US 2021/0263773 A1 (hereafter SHAH).
Regarding claim 6, while KALYANASUNDARAM discusses mitigation of thermal throttling, KALYANASUNDARAM does not explicitly teach:
balancing energy consumption and performance of the deterministic processor.
However, in analogous art that similarly discusses mitigation of thermal throttling, SHAH teaches:
balancing energy consumption and performance of the deterministic processor ([0022] The more the core resources are used, the more power is consumed and the more waste heat is generated. [0062] If the bandwidth reduction operation 422 does not fully alleviate a potential for thermal throttling, and the scheduler module 220 reduces 424, within each core 104-X of the processing device 202, the available CPU processing capacity thereof. The CPU processing capacity reduction operation 424 is particularly effective if there exists a plurality of low utilization tasks in an execution queue (not shown). In general, if all of the processing tasks are determined to be the thermally cooler tasks, and the computing system still approaches or attains the thermal limits, then reducing the CPU processing capacity to X % will allow the CPU to be used for X % of the time only. For the rest of the time, the CPU will be allowed to cool down. In at least one embodiment, the predetermined CPU processing capacity reduction is approximately 50%. Alternatively, in at least some embodiments, the value of the predetermined CPU processing capacity reduction is any value that enables operation of the processing device 202 and the computing system 200 as described herein (i.e., CPU performance capacity is balanced with the potential for thermal throttling caused by power consumption)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined SHAH’s teaching of balancing thermal energy consumption with processor performance, with KALYANASUNDARAM’s teaching of facilitating mitigation of thermal excursions while executing tasks, to realize, with a reasonable expectation of success, a system that facilitates mitigation of thermal excursions due to execution of tasks, as in KALYANASUNDARAM, and by balancing thermal energy consumption with processor performance, as in SHAH. A person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination to improve thermal performance and loading across processing cores (SHAH [0002]).
Regarding claim 7, while KALYANASUNDARAM discusses scheduling of tasks based on thermal considerations, KALYANASUNDARAM does not explicitly teach:
determining, by the compiler and during the execution of the scheduled workload, that a power consumed by the deterministic processor satisfies a thermal design power threshold; and
reallocating, by the compiler, resource use within the deterministic processor, wherein the reallocating facilitates maintaining a temperature of the deterministic processor within a defined narrow operating range.
However, in analogous art that similarly discusses scheduling tasks based on thermal considerations, SHAH teaches:
determining, by the compiler and during the execution of the scheduled workload, that a power consumed by the deterministic processor satisfies a thermal design power threshold; and reallocating, by the compiler, resource use within the deterministic processor, wherein the reallocating facilitates maintaining a temperature of the deterministic processor within a defined narrow operating range ([0056] The process 400 includes distributing 402, dynamically (i.e., during execution of the processing tasks, as opposed to static, or predetermined distribution), processing of the second instances 244 of the one or more processing tasks to the one or more cores 104-X of the one or more multi-core processing devices 202 subject to one or more of the plurality of predictions of thermal effects of the one or more processing tasks 244. In at least one embodiment, the second instance 244 of the processing tasks are scheduled 404, by the scheduler module 220, through a first-come-first-served scheduling scheme. [0058] In at least some embodiments, the scheduler module 220 executes actions that mitigate 408 a potential for core thermal throttling (i.e., thermal throttling represents a threshold for thermal power in a core). These actions include scheduling 410 the second instances 244 of the processing tasks that are in the first group (thermally hotter) of processing tasks to one or more cores 104-X of the first group (thermally cooler) of cores, where the first group of cores 104-X have a first thermal condition having a first thermal margin to the predetermined thermal threshold of the one or more 104-X. Also, in these embodiments, the scheduler module 220 schedules 412 the second instances 244 of the one or more processing tasks that are in the second group (thermally cooler) of processing tasks to one or more cores 104-X of the second group (thermally hotter) of cores 104-X having a second thermal condition which at least partially defines a second thermal margin to the predetermined thermal threshold of the one or more cores 104-X, where the second thermal margin is smaller than the first thermal margin. Accordingly, in at least one embodiment, the scheduler module 220 schedules 414, subject to the first thermal margin and the second thermal margin, each process task of the second instances 244 of the processing tasks to each core 104-X, thereby decreasing a difference between the first thermal margin and the second thermal margin, i.e., schedule the second instances 244 of the processing tasks such that thermal effects of the processing tasks 244 and the temperatures of the cores 104-X are managed by the scheduler module 220 to be flattened thermally (i.e., dynamically scheduling tasks to different cores represents “reallocating” use of the cores to tasks to maintain temperature between thermal margins).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined SHAH’s teaching of dynamically rescheduling processing tasks between cores based on thermal power thresholds during task execution, with KALYANASUNDARAM’s teaching of facilitating mitigation of thermal excursions before execution of processing tasks, to realize, with a reasonable expectation of success, a system that facilitates mitigation of thermal excursions both before a task is scheduled to execute, as in KALYANASUNDARAM, and after the task executes by reallocating tasks between processing cores, as in SHAH. A person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination to improve thermal performance and loading across processing cores (SHAH [0002]).
Regarding claim 8, SHAH further teaches:
the reallocating comprises reordering execution of a plurality of operations within the deterministic processor ([0058] In at least some embodiments, the scheduler module 220 executes actions that mitigate 408 a potential for core thermal throttling (i.e., thermal throttling represents a threshold for thermal power in a core). These actions include scheduling 410 the second instances 244 of the processing tasks that are in the first group (thermally hotter) of processing tasks to one or more cores 104-X of the first group (thermally cooler) of cores, where the first group of cores 104-X have a first thermal condition having a first thermal margin to the predetermined thermal threshold of the one or more 104-X. Also, in these embodiments, the scheduler module 220 schedules 412 the second instances 244 of the one or more processing tasks that are in the second group (thermally cooler) of processing tasks to one or more cores 104-X of the second group (thermally hotter) of cores 104-X having a second thermal condition which at least partially defines a second thermal margin to the predetermined thermal threshold of the one or more cores 104-X, where the second thermal margin is smaller than the first thermal margin. Accordingly, in at least one embodiment, the scheduler module 220 schedules 414, subject to the first thermal margin and the second thermal margin, each process task of the second instances 244 of the processing tasks to each core 104-X, thereby decreasing a difference between the first thermal margin and the second thermal margin, i.e., schedule the second instances 244 of the processing tasks such that thermal effects of the processing tasks 244 and the temperatures of the cores 104-X are managed by the scheduler module 220 to be flattened thermally (i.e., execution of tasks of the first and second group are “reordered” on first and second groups of cores respectively to flatten core temperature)).
Regarding claim 9, SHAH further teaches:
the reallocating comprises dividing the scheduled workload into smaller chunks ([0025] in addition to classifying the processing tasks with respect to their core heating properties (based on empirical, real-world measurements and calculations), and assigning the processing tasks to the cores based on their established core heating properties, thereby flattening the measured margins to the thermal limits across the cores, a number of additional methods to prevent thermal throttling may be employed. One such additional method includes reducing, within one or more of the cores, by the scheduling manager, a bandwidth of processing tasks known to increase the temperature of the cores to the thermal limits by injecting one or more idle loops into the cores while the associated processing tasks are running through the cores, thereby halting the execution of the processing tasks for a predetermined period of time and allowing the cores to cool down (i.e., idle loops are inserted, thereby breaking up, or “dividing” a workflow of multiple tasks into smaller divisions of tasks separated by the idle loops)).
Regarding claim 10, SHAH further teaches:
the reallocating comprises selectively inserting lower power operations of the scheduled workload between higher power operations of the scheduled workload during the execution ([0025] in addition to classifying the processing tasks with respect to their core heating properties (based on empirical, real-world measurements and calculations), and assigning the processing tasks to the cores based on their established core heating properties, thereby flattening the measured margins to the thermal limits across the cores, a number of additional methods to prevent thermal throttling may be employed. One such additional method includes reducing, within one or more of the cores, by the scheduling manager, a bandwidth of processing tasks known to increase the temperature of the cores to the thermal limits by injecting one or more idle loops into the cores while the associated processing tasks are running through the cores, thereby halting the execution of the processing tasks for a predetermined period of time and allowing the cores to cool down (i.e., idle loops represent “lower power operations”)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CHER et al. Pub. No.: US 2017/0261380 A1 discloses determining predicted temperatures and whether they exceed threshold temperatures, and in response, taking action which includes throttling a processing unit, migrating/swapping tasks, or adjusting schedules of tasks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W AYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6420. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/MICHAEL W AYERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights