DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Herein after “it would have been obvious” should be read as “it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention”.
The examiner notes added limitation includes the allowable feature of the parent patent thus introducing the question of double patenting.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 39, 41-44, 46-49, 51-54, 56 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,013,719 in view of Lee, Sr et al PN 2022/0212852.
Pending claim 39 reads:
A processor comprising: at least one core to be powered by a voltage, the at least one core to operate at a frequency associated with a clock; a sensor to sense a temperature of the at least one core; and circuitry to, based on the sensed temperature being within a temperature range, the temperature range selected based on (1) a number of cores that are active and (2) a first user input, the temperature range bounded by a first temperature threshold and a second temperature threshold specified by the first user input for the number of cores that are active: decrease the voltage applied to the at least one core based on a voltage offset; and increase the frequency of the clock applied to the at least one core, the voltage offset based on a second user input.
Patented claim 1 reads:
An apparatus to dynamically configure an overclocking frequency, the apparatus comprising: adjuster circuitry to cause a processor core to operate at a first overclock rate; a comparator to: determine a temperature threshold based on a number of a plurality of cores that are active, the plurality of cores including the processing core; and compare a sensed temperature corresponding to the processor core to the temperature threshold; and the adjuster circuitry to, when based on the sensed temperature satisfying the temperature threshold, decrease a clock rate of the plurality of cores from the first overclock rate, the decreased clock rate being above a normal operating clock rate of the processor core.
Claim 5: introduces “a voltage adjuster to, based on the sensed temperature satisfying the second temperature threshold, increase a supply voltage of the processor core”.
Claim 6: “wherein the sensed temperature is a first sensed temperature at a first time, wherein: the comparator is to compare a second sensed temperature corresponding to the processor core at a second time different than the first time; and the adjuster circuitry to, based on the second sensed temperature corresponding to the processor core satisfies satisfying a third temperature threshold, decrease the supply voltage of the processor core.”
Thus, the pending claim includes only the limit of a user specifying the temperature range as opposed to “determine a temperature threshold” while omitting the limitations of overclocking.
Lee, Sr et al teaches (claim 16 “determining a specified temperature range based on one or more item characteristics of the item; setting, in a user interface, by a sender of the item, the specified temperature range for the container”). It would have been obvious to allow a user to specify the temperature ranges because this would have allowed greater user control.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Multiple references were found with a user able to specify a temperature range such as for an air conditioning system that has a lower level turn on heat and an upper level turn on cooling. The examiner is citing Lee, Sr et al PN 2022/0212852 that teaches claim 16 “determining a specified temperature range based on one or more item characteristics of the item; setting, in a user interface, by a sender of the item, the specified temperature range for the container“. The claim language however, states “specified by the first user input for the number of cores that are active”. The examiner was unable to find a user specifying the temperature range for the number of cores active. This feature was also noted as the reason for allowance in the parent patent.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bose et al PN 2009/0064164 teaches a user specified temperature when a task is to be moved (hopping) from an active core to in inactive core based on the inactive core temperature. The inactive core temperature is also user specified ([0038] “the user can specify migration based on temperature”).
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 PAUL R MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3639. The examiner can normally be reached telework M-F start 7-8 leave 4-5.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/Paul R. MYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
