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
1. The office acknowledges the receipt of the following and placed of record in the file: Amendment dated 3/5/2026.
2. Claims 1-18 are presented for examination.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harwani et al. (“Harwani”), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0350696.
Regarding Claims 1, 7 and 13, Harwani teaches a method performed by a processor system of a computing device for dynamic voltage adjustment for a client of the computing device [Fig-4 (as voltage droop adjusted in user device)], comprising:
identifying a potential current profile (selecting a voltage droop setting) for a use case for the client [Para: 0040(when “a particular workload is detected” or selected from “profiles 206 – 212 are depicted with processor” see para 0074, having adjusted voltage droop setting) and Fig-2)] based on maximum current for the client [0038(according to allocation of “desired power consumption” of user/system in setting 118)] and potential maximum current for the use case for the client [Para: 0043(as “respective voltage threshold is satisfied” which led to “droop response includes a frequency adjustment that specifies an amount that a clock rate” or a current for use case should be used according to desired power consumption in setting 118)].
identifying a voltage reduction for the use case for the client based in part on the potential current profile for the use case for the client [Para: 0039(as setting 118 “map … voltage droop detection”) and 0086(“voltage droop setting adjustment user interface 404 that receives … adjusting voltage droop settings of the settings 118”); Fig-2, 4]; and
transmitting the voltage reduction for the use case for the client to a system power manager [Para: 0043(as “droop response” is implemented to “in response to detecting the voltage droop, the controller sends adjustment signals 120 to the voltage generator 112”)].
Regarding Claims 2, 8 and 14, Harwani teaches wherein identifying the potential current profile for the use case for the client comprises:
retrieving a maximum current for the client from a memory [Para: 0026 (settings in table) and 0039(settings 118 are configured as a table”); and
identifying a potential maximum current for the use case for the client [Para: 0042(when “droop voltage threshold” is defined where voltage droop threshold setting has corresponding maximum current associated with it)].
Regarding Claims 3, 9 and 15, Harwani teaches wherein the voltage reduction for the use case for the client is configured to indicate to the system power manager to reduce a voltage to the client to a voltage level that maintains the voltage to the client at a level greater than a minimum voltage for the client during an occurrence of voltage droop corresponding to the potential maximum current for the use case for the client [Para: 0075(“settings 118 are adjustable, including the settings for a respective profile” to a maximum or minimum level where settings include voltage droop setting with its corresponding current)].
Regarding Claims 4, 10 and 16, Harwani teaches wherein identifying the potential maximum current for the use case for the client comprises calculating the potential maximum current for the use case for the client based on pending work for the use case for the client [Para: 0043(“overclocking” due to pending work) and 0075(“settings 118 are adjustable, including the settings for a respective profile (e.g., a workload)”].
Regarding Claims 5, 11 and 17, Harwani teaches wherein identifying the potential maximum current for the use case for the client comprises retrieving the potential maximum current for the use case for the client from the memory [Para: 0026 (“a table for storing the different settings”) and 0039(“the settings 118 are configured as a table that is accessible to the controller 106”)].
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.
4. Claim(s) 6, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harwani as applied above and Roumi et al. (“Roumi”), US 2016/0190833.
Regarding Claims 6, 12 and 18, Harwani teaches wherein identifying the voltage reduction for the use case for the client based in part on the potential current profile for the use case for the client comprises: retrieving a maximum current use for the client from a memory; and
identifying the voltage reduction for the use case for the client based on the potential current profile for the use case for the client and the maximum current for the client as set forth above.
Harwani does not disclose expressly retrieving a peak impedance from memory and identifying a voltage reduction based on the peak impedance for the client.
(An impedance is one other aspect of power like resistance, a measure of the opposition to time-varying electric current in an electric circuit.)
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., adjusting voltage according impedance in a device), Roumi teaches retrieving a peak impedance and identifying a voltage based on the peak impedance for a device [Para: 0011 and 0029].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Harwani’s teachings of identifying the voltage reduction for the use case for the client based on the potential current profile for the use case for the client and the maximum current for the client with Roumi’s teachings of retrieving a peak impedance and identifying a voltage based on the peak impedance for a device for the purpose of adjusting operation mode of a processor and/memory “on the fly” in a real time without re-booting in order have low latency [Harwani, Para: 0010].
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed on 3/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues regarding Claims 1, 7 and 13 that Harwani does not disclose “identifying use case for the client based on maximum current for the client and potential maximum current for the use case …”. Examiner disagrees.
First, claim broadly recites a maximum current for a use case and maximum current for the user where, identifying a current profile for the use case (for the user) based on maximum current for the user and maximum current for use case. Claim is very vague about the maximum current for the client and maximum current for the use case. It is essentially an allocated and/or operated current.
Second, in other words, claim simply recites identifying a current profile for a use case for the client according to allocated current to the client. Harwani teaches argued feature as to the extent it is claimed as set forth above.
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 MOHAMMED H REHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1412. The examiner can normally be reached 8.00 - 5.00.
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.
/MOHAMMED H REHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights