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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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:
a controller configured to receive in claim 1,
a controller configured to receive in claim 1,
a controller configured to calculate in claim 1,
a controller configured to generate in claim 1,
a controller configured to … send in claim 1,
the controller configured to receive in claim 4,
the controller configured to receive in claim 4.
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 § 112
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 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 12, and 18 recite “calculate a power allocation for each of the plurality of computing device components, … to achieve platform-agnostic power limit management across the plurality of computing deice components via the input interface”. It is unclear how calculating a power allocation achieves platform agnostic power limit management. There does not appear to be any connection between the two different functions in the claim limitations. Therefore the claim limitations are unclear. For examination purposes, being able to calculate a power allocation for each of the plurality of computing device components is interpreted as achieving platform-agnostic power limit management.
Claim 6 recites “a device driver interface”, “an advanced configuration and power interface” and “a plug and play device interface”. All of these interfaces are based on standards with different revisions and the claim language covers all future standards that that may not have been contemplated, as well as past standards that may be contradictory. It is unclear what revision of each standard is being used.
Claim 13 recites “a plurality of computing device components” and “each computing device component”. It is unclear if these are the same or different computing device components. For examination purposes, “each computing device component” will be read as “each of the plurality of computing device components”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsirkin (US 20250004535).
Regarding claim 1, Tsirkin teaches
A computing device, comprising:
an operating system ("OS"); (Fig. 1 (operating system – 120))
an actuator, configured to control power consumption by each of a plurality of computing device components, the plurality of computing device components comprising at least one hardware component, wherein each computing device component of the plurality of computing device components is integrated or connected with the computing device; and (Figs. 1-2, [0039], “Client device 260 is connected to host 218 in cloud 210 and host 228 in cloud 220 and the cloud service provider systems 219, 229 via a network 230, which may be a private network (e.g., a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), intranet, or other similar private networks) or a public network (e.g., the Internet). Each client 260 may be a mobile device, a PDA, a laptop, a desktop computer, a tablet computing device, a server device, or any other computing device.”, [0047-48], “The power monitoring module 330 can monitor the power consumption of each process in the group of processes according to the respective power usage allowance. In some implementations, the power consumption of the application is monitored by using the total power consumed by the process, which may include the power used by various resources, including processors, memory, storage, and/or I/O devices. … The power control module 340 can limit the power consumption of a process by limiting power consumed by at least one resource used by the process. The resources may include one or more processors, one or more memory, one or more storage, and one or more I/O devices.”)
a power limit management system (Fig. 1 (power management component – 150), comprising: ([0019], “ The computer system 100 may include a power management component 150 that can perform power management for applications 130A-103C and/or any other suitable component of computer system 100.”)
an input interface; (Fig. 1)
an output interface; and (Fig. 1)
a controller (Fig. 3) , configured within the operating system, configured to:
receive, via the input interface, power-related data associated with electrical power supplied from a power source device for the plurality of computing device components; ([0027], “the power management component 150 can determine the available power supply of the computer system 100 … the available power supply of the computer system 100 can be represented by a remaining battery percentage, and the power management component 150 can determine the available power supply of the computer system 100 to be A % remaining battery of the computer system”)
receive, via the input interface, operational state-related data associated with the plurality of computing device components; ([0047], “The power monitoring module 330 can monitor the power consumption of each process in the group of processes according to the respective power usage allowance. In some implementations, the power consumption of the application is monitored by using the total power consumed by the process, which may include the power used by various resources, including processors, memory, storage, and/or I/O devices.”)
calculate a power allocation for each of the plurality of computing device components, based on the power-related data and the operational state-related data, to achieve platform-agnostic power limit management across the plurality of computing device components via the input interface; (Figs. 3-4, [0046], “The power monitoring module 330 can monitor power usage of each process in the group of processes. In some implementations, the power monitoring module 330 can determine the available power supply of the computer system, and calculate the proportional power usage allowance for processes in the group”, [0056], “In some implementations, the processing device calculates a first power usage allowance for each process of the first plurality of processes based on the first power usage quota and the amount of available power supply, where throttling the corresponding power consumption is performed based on the first power usage allowance. In some implementations, calculating the first power usage allowance is performed responsive to at least one of: at a predefined frequency, or upon detecting a power event.” and [0047], “The power monitoring module 330 can monitor the power consumption of each process in the group of processes according to the respective power usage allowance. In some implementations, the power consumption of the application is monitored by using the total power consumed by the process, which may include the power used by various resources, including processors, memory, storage, and/or I/O devices.” Whereby being able to calculate a power allocation for each of the plurality of computing device components is interpreted as providing platform agnostic power limit management.)
generate a control signal for controlling power consumption for each of the plurality of computing device components, based on the power allocation; and (Fig. 4 , [0021], “the power management component 150 may set a power usage criterion (e.g., a quota) and configure, by writing values in a configuration file, a group of processes such that each process within the group is bound by the power usage criterion. For example, the power management component 150 may configure a first group of processes including application 130A, a second group of processes including application 130B, and a third group of processes including application 130C. The power management component 150 may set the first group of processes that are bound by power usage being no more than X quota of the available power of the computer system, set the second group of processes that are bound by power usage being no more than Y quota of the available power of the computer system” and [0057-58], “At operation 440, the processing device adjust a parameter of a resource allocated to the first process according to the power usage allowance. The resource incudes at least one of: a memory, a central processing unit (CPU), or an input/output (I/O) device. … the processing device can throttle the corresponding power consumption by modifying a power state of a CPU allocated to a first process”)
for each of the plurality of computing device components, send, via the output interface, the control signal to the actuator, the control signal causing the actuator to control power consumption by the corresponding computing device component. ([0021], “the power management component 150 may set a power usage criterion (e.g., a quota) and configure, by writing values in a configuration file, a group of processes such that each process within the group is bound by the power usage criterion. For example, the power management component 150 may configure a first group of processes including application 130A, a second group of processes including application 130B, and a third group of processes including application 130C. The power management component 150 may set the first group of processes that are bound by power usage being no more than X quota of the available power of the computer system, set the second group of processes that are bound by power usage being no more than Y quota of the available power of the computer system” and [0058], “the processing device can throttle the corresponding power consumption by adjusting, based on the first power usage quota, a parameter of a computing resource being consumed by a first process of the first plurality of processes. The parameter specifies at least one of: a CPU usage limit, an input/output (I/O) bandwidth limit, a screen brightness limit, or a memory usage limit.”)
Regarding claim 2, Tsirkin teaches wherein the computing device is one of a smart phone, a mobile phone, a tablet computer, a desktop computer, a handheld gaming device, a gaming console, or a server, wherein the plurality of computing device components includes software components and hardware components, the software components including the OS, a kernel, device drivers, and application code, and the hardware components including at least one of a central processing unit ("CPU"), a graphics processing unit ("GPU"), a neural processing unit ("NPU"), other processors, a memory device, an interface device, a communications system, or a plug-and-play ("PNP") hardware device, wherein the power source device is one of an alternating current ("AC") power adapter, a battery-based power supply, or a universal serial bus ("USB") -based power adapter. (Fig. 1, [0017-20], “The computer system 100 may include processer (e.g., central processing unit (CPU)) 160, main memory 170, storage device 180, and an Input/Output (I/O) device 190. … The operating system (OS) 120 runs a set of applications 130A-130C … “the power management component 150 includes a kernel feature called control groups (e.g., cgroups). The kernel feature allows the computer system to allocate resources-such as CPU time, system memory, network bandwidth, or combinations of these resources-among user-defined groups of processes running on the computer system 100.” [0039], “a mobile device, a PDA, a laptop, a desktop computer, a tablet computing device, a server device … an operating system (OS) 120”)
Regarding claim 3, Tsirkin teaches wherein the power-related data includes at least one of: static power-related data associated with sustained power, peak power, power capacity, or power usage state for one or more static states of the power source device; runtime power-related data associated with sustained power, peak power, power capacity, or power usage state for one or more runtime states of operation of the power source device; estimated power-related data associated with one or more of estimated total power consumption by the plurality of computing device components or estimated power consumption by each of the plurality of computing device components; or actual power-related data associated with one or more of actual total power consumption by the plurality of computing device components or actual power consumption by each of the plurality of computing device components. ([0029], “The power management component 150 can monitor, such as by taking a static snapshot or recording dynamic running of the resource data, the power consumption of the processes in the groups according to the respective power usage allowance. In some implementations, the power consumption of the process is monitored by using the total power consumed by the process, which may include the power used by the processor 160, main memory 170, storage device 180, and I/O device 190.” And [0011], “ A power management component can monitor the status of available power supply (e.g., supplied by one or more batteries in the computer system)”)
Regarding claim 4, Tsirkin teaches wherein the controller is further configured to:
receive, via the input interface, a target power limit associated with the power-related data associated with electrical power supplied from the power source device, wherein the target power limit includes one of a static target value associated with a power source device having a constant-power output or a dynamic target value associated with a power source device having a variable-power output; and receive, via the input interface, a feedback signal associated with at least one of power-related data or operational state-related data for the at least one computing device component, wherein the feedback signal includes one of a static feedback signal associated with a computing device component having a constant-power draw or a dynamic feedback signal associated with either a computing device component having a wide power range or a computing device component having multiple performance states with different power draw levels; wherein the power allocation for the computing device component is further based on at least one of the target power limit and the feedback signal. (Figs. 4-5, [0011], “ A power management component can monitor the status of available power supply (e.g., supplied by one or more batteries in the computer system) and calculate a power usage allowance for the group based on the status of available power supply and the power usage criterion. The power usage allowance refers to a maximum amount of power that can be consumed by the group within a time period.” And [0012], “The purpose of the throttling power consumption is to enforce the quota such that the quota will not be exceeded … , the power consumed by the process(es) of the group and detect that the power consumed by the process(es) of the group reaches the power usage allowance. Responsive to detecting that the power consumed by the process(es) of the group reaches the power usage allowance, the power management component can adjust the parameter(s) of the resources (or reallocate the resources) through the resource controllers such that the power consumed by the resources does not exceed the power usage allowance (i.e., throttling the power consumption).”)
Regarding claim 7, Tsirkin teaches wherein the input interface is configured to support poll-based updates and event-driven updates for each of the power-related data and the operational state-related data. ([0011], “The power management component can calculate the power usage allowance periodically at a predefined frequency, or upon detecting a power event’ and [0012], “the power management component can monitor, such as by taking a static snapshot or recording dynamic running of the resource data, the power consumed by the process(es) of the group and detect that the power consumed by the process(es) of the group reaches the power usage allowance.”)
Regarding claim 8, Tsirkin teaches wherein the power-related data for a computing device component is received in response to a query based on a component identification information or component related data for the computing device. ([0033], “the data structure may be a table including multiple records. Each record may include, for example, an identifier of an application, a metric of an application, a power usage criterion associated with an application, a power usage allowance during a time period associated with the application, etc.”)
Regarding claim 9, Tsirkin teaches wherein calculating power allocation for the at least one computing device component comprises: determining an order of priority for allocating power to each of the plurality of computing device components; and ([0043], “the group creating module 310 may determine the metrics as a priority associated with the process to be included in the group, e.g., important, standard, trivial, etc. The priority can be determined according to a user instruction or a default rank known in the industry.”)
calculating a power allocation for the at least one computing device component based on the order of priority. ([0034], “pausing a process that has a low priority; reducing the frequency for scheduling a process that has low priority”, [0045], “ the power usage criterion module 320 may determine the power usage criterion for the group of processes in the group with a high priority (important) to be X4 quota, the group with a medium priority (standard) to be Y4 quota, the group with a low priority (trivial) to be Y4 quota, etc.”)
Regarding claim 10, Tsirkin teaches wherein the control signal for each of the at least one computing device component includes one of: a control signal to throttle power usage to remain below a set wattage value for a computing device component having a wide power range or having power control capability; a control signal to limit performance to a set percentage of a maximum capacity of another computing device component having a wide power range or having power control capability; or a control signal to alter a performance state of the corresponding actuator for a computing device component having multiple performance states with different power draw levels. ([0012] “Responsive to detecting that the power consumed by the process(es) of the group reaches the power usage allowance, the power management component can adjust the parameter(s) of the resources (or reallocate the resources) through the resource controllers such that the power consumed by the resources does not exceed the power usage allowance (i.e., throttling the power consumption)”)
As to claim 18, Tsirkin teaches this claim according to the reasoning provided in claim 1.
As to claim 19, Tsirkin teaches this claim according to the reasoning provided in claim 4.
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.
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsirkin in view of Vanderpool et al. (US 20230068471)
Regarding claim 11, Tsirkin does not teach but Vanderpool teaches wherein generating and sending the control signal comprises, for each of the plurality of computing device components:
quantifying power consumption change for the computing device component based on the power allocation; and performing one of: based on a quantification of the power consumption changing by a delta value, generating and sending a control signal to a corresponding actuator for the actuator to change an amount of power consumption by the corresponding computing device component by the delta value; or based on a quantification of the power consumption not changing, performing one of: skipping generation and sending of a control signal to the corresponding actuator for the corresponding computing device component; generating and sending a no-change control signal to the corresponding actuator for the actuator to maintain a current power consumption by the corresponding computing device component; or generating and sending a new control signal to the corresponding actuator for the actuator to control power consumption by the corresponding computing device component, the new control signal corresponding to the current power consumption by the corresponding computing device component.([0038], “Moreover, in at least some embodiments, for each period, the core's period energy value (based on the sum of all activity in the respective period) is compared to the period energy target. If the energy consumed by the core, i.e., the period energy value was less than (under) the period energy target, i.e., thereby generating an under value, the requested period fine throttle index (P-FTX) value in the P-FTX register is reduced on a proportional basis, based on a scaling algorithm of the delta between the target and actual value, thereby causing less throttling to the core in the next period. If the period energy value is greater than (over) the period energy target, i.e., thereby generating an over value, the requested P-FTX in the P-FTX register is increased on a proportional basis to increase the throttling of the core in the next period. The over/under consumption of the energy consumed in a period is accumulated and factored into computation of the next throttle state index value in the P-FTX register for the next period target. Since the consumption delta values are accumulated based on the power target for each period”, [0065], “the WOF interval energy target represents the energy allocation directed to the respective processor core and is at least partially based on the power state (PState), an accumulated error from the previous WOF interval (described further with respect to FIG. 10), and the real-time power characteristics of the processing system (as previously discussed herein).”
Tsirkin and Vanderpool are analogous art. Vanderpool is cited to teach a similar concept of power management of components in an electronic device. Vanderpool teaches using fine grained throttling to minimize course throttling. This implementation includes using a feedback loop and determining a delta value between the target and actual power consumption and adjusting throttling based on this the delta value Based on Vanderpool, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Tsirkin to determine a power allocation (i.e. target power consumption) and the actual power consumption and throttling a component based on the delta. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the invention it would have been advantageous to make this modification because “this fine-grained core throttle management is supplemented by protective hardware features, including, without limitation, a digital droop sensor to measure core voltage droop and the associated hardware to quickly react with coarse core throttling to prevent any decrease in the service life of the integrated circuit. … When engaged, the coarse throttling has a significant impact on core performance. … the fine-grained power management through the PITCH loop is configured to prevent exercising of the coarse throttle control.”, [0041]
As to claim 12, Tsirkin and Vanderpool teaches this claim according to the reasoning provided in claim 1 and 11.
As to claim 13, Tsirkin teaches this claim according to the reasoning provided in claim 3.
As to claim 14, Tsirkin teaches this claim according to the reasoning provided in claims 4 and 10.
As to claim 15, Tsirkin teaches this claim according to the reasoning provided in claim 6.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsirkin in view of Pathak et al. (US 20190369705)
Regarding claim 16, Tsirkin teaches receiving, via the state-dependent type of interface, a feedback signal associated with at least one of power-related data or operational state-related data for the computing device component, wherein the feedback signal includes a dynamic feedback signal associated with the computing device component having the multiple performance states with different power draw levels;
wherein the control signal for the computing device component includes a control signal to alter a performance state of the corresponding actuator for the computing device component having multiple performance states with different power draw levels.
Tsirkin does not teach but Pathak teaches wherein the at least one computing device component includes a computing device component having multiple performance states with different power draw levels, wherein the input interface includes a state-dependent type of interface that is configured for use with the computing device component having multiple performance states with different power draw levels and lacking a capability or need to measure its power consumption, wherein the method further comprises: ([0055], “a value for core power 405 at a given point in time, operating system 205 retrieves power state information for processing core 202a at the given point in time and converts the corresponding power signal voltage level and clock signal frequency into a power consumption value. Operating system 205 may utilize one or more equations to convert the voltage and frequency values into a power value or may use the voltage and frequency values to access a lookup table that stores power consumption values.”)
Tsirkin and Pathak are analogous art. Pathak is cited to teach a similar concept of power usage in an electronic device. Pathak teaches tracking power usage at different points in time from different non-CPU components in an electronic device to determine which devices are consuming a lot of power during different processes in order to be able to minimize power consumption of these components. Pathak uses a lookup table for CPU power based on frequency and voltage for determining its power consumption during these processes. Based on Pathak, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Tsirkin to use a lookup table to determine state dependent power consumption via an interface. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the invention it would have been advantageous to make this modification because “to identify opportunities to improve energy usage in application 601.”, [0066]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative states that the limitations “the plurality of computing device components comprising at least one hardware component,” and “calculate a power allocation for each of the plurality of computing device components, based on the power-related data and the operational state-related data, to achieve platform-agnostic power limit management across the plurality of computing device components via the input interface” are not taught but does not explain why. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tsirkin teaches the first limitation with Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs [0039 and 0047-48] and the second limitation with Figs. 3-4 and paragraphs [0046-47 and 0056] as recited above in the U.S.C. 102 rejection.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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 CHERI L. HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-0468. The examiner can normally be reached Generally, M-F, 7:30a-4p.
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.
/CHERI L HARRINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2176 April 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights