DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 12/12/2024. Claims 1-8 have been cancelled. Claims 9-16 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “ACCELERATOR OFFLOAD DEVICE TO OFFLOAD INSTRUCTIONS TO AN ACCELERATOR OR A CPU”.
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 9-11, 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 9:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 9:
Claim 9 recites “An accelerator offload device” and thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 9 recites “…determine, based on the data processing amount acquired by the data processing amount acquisition part, either a CPU that executes a parallel operation or the accelerator as an offload target processing execution site... when the offload target processing execution site needs to be changed, change the offload target processing execution site”. That is other than reciting generic computing components (e.g. accelerator, CPU, shared memory, parts, etc. …) nothing in the claimed elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
For example, the claim discusses making a determination as to which hardware component (CPU or accelerator) executes instructions based on acquiring data processing amount information and making another determination when that hardware component changes (e.g. performing evaluation or judgement based on some collected or acquire data), thus the limitation encompasses mental processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) ((III)) (See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
If a claim, limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mental process in the mind with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 9 further recites additional elements of
… offload specific processing of an application program to an accelerator… a data processing amount acquisition part… an operation destination determination part configured… executing the offload target processing… an operation processing offload part… data to be processed and a processing instruction in a shared memory shared with the offload target processing execution site to cause the offload target processing execution site to execute the offload target processing
… acquire a data processing amount, the data processing amount being a data processing amount at a current time of offload target processing being performed and/or a predicted data processing amount… receive a request for processing the offload target processing from the application program and to store data to be processed
These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because (a) recites at a high-level of generality the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or use mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (b) recites insignificant extra-solution activities (i.e. data gathering/outputting) (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
Therefore, claim 9 is directed to the abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The additional elements of claim 9 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination, because (a) uses mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) recites insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering/outputting (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)). Furthermore, (b) recites limitations which the courts have deemed to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities that do not provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(d)); the courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network ((Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362), as well as storing and retrieving information in memory are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functionalities (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93)). Additionally, the limitations disclosing offloading are also well-understood, routine, and conventional based upon applicant’s own admission in background paragraphs [0002-0006] which discuss offloading processing from an application program to a CPU and accelerator being increasingly utilized.
Therefore, based on the discussion of the additional elements above, claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Claim 10, dependent upon claim 9, further recites “…wherein the operation processing offload part receives the request for processing the offload target processing from the application program through a same interface”, which recites additional details of receiving requests through an interface. The additional limitations tie the abstract idea to using mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional limitations also recite insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering/outputting, which are well-known, routine and conventional activities (See MPEP 2106.05 (d and g)). Therefore, the claim recites no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 11, dependent upon claim 9, further recites “…wherein the operation processing offload part is configured to, upon reception of an instruction to change the offload target processing execution site from the operation destination determination part, change the offload target processing execution site from the accelerator to the CPU or from the CPU to the accelerator”, which recites additional details of receiving instructions and additional details of an abstract idea that makes a determination to change the processing execution site from CPU to accelerator or vice versa. The additional limitations tie the abstract idea to using mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which cannot provide significantly more and recite the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(d and f-g)). Therefore, the claim recites no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 13, dependent upon claim 9, further recites “…further comprising a traffic prediction information provisioning part configured to provide prediction information on an increase or a decrease in a traffic amount to the data processing amount acquisition part”, which recites additional details of providing information using computer components and/or instructions. The additional limitations tie the abstract idea to using mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional limitations also recite insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering/outputting, which are well-known, routine and conventional activities (See MPEP 2106.05 (d and g)). Therefore, the claim recites no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 15-16 are similarly rejected on the same basis as claim 9 above.
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 data processing amount acquisition part configured to acquire”, “an operation destination determination part configured to determine”, “an operation processing offload part configured to receive/change”, “an accelerator power control part configured to perform”, “traffic prediction information provisioning part configured to provide” and “a CPU performance control part configured to control CPU performance” in claims 9-14. From the disclosure, the elements are shown as black box elements in Figs. 1, 11 and 18 (see elements 110, 120, 130, 140, 210 and 310). The paragraphs of the disclosure corresponding to the above elements do not appear to discuss any structure for the claimed “parts”. Thus, specific structures do not appear to be disclosed in the specification.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as claims 9-14 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but the written description fails to disclose each corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed functions. (See claim construction above regarding “parts configured to acquire/determine/receive/change/perform/provide/control” configured to perform functions)
Claims 10-14 and 16 are dependent upon one of the claims above and therefore are similarly rejected on the same basis as one of the claims above based upon dependency.
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 9-14 and 16 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 9-14 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed functions. As the specification does not provide adequate disclosure, the claim boundaries are not known, thus rendering the claim indefinite. See Claim construction above. For the purposes of prior art examination, Examiner is interpreting as any combination of software and/or hardware for performing the functions. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 10-14 and 16 are dependent upon one of the claims above and therefore are similarly rejected on the same basis as one of the claims above based upon dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarel, PGPUB No. 2014/0052965 (cited on IDS filed on 12/12/2024), and further in view of Sprangle, PGPUB No. 2011/0157195.
In regards to claim 9, Sarel discloses An accelerator offload device configured to offload specific processing of an application program to an accelerator ([0005, 0021, 0024 and Fig. 1]: a computer system (device) for offloading instructions from an application to a GPU) the accelerator offload device comprising: a data processing amount acquisition part configured to acquire a data processing amount, the data processing amount being a data processing amount at a current time of offload target processing being performed and/or a predicted data processing amount ([0030-0035 and 0040-0041]: wherein power control unit (e.g., data processing amount acquisition part) determines (e.g. acquires) current power readings (data processing amount, e.g. an amount of power currently being used to process data) at a current time of offloading instructions being performed or predicted power values (data processing amount). Also, optionally in a same embodiment a current amount of core utilization can be measured by queue monitoring or with use of hardware counters (See Figs. 3A and 4)) an operation destination determination part configured to determine, based on the data processing amount acquired by the data processing amount acquisition part, either a CPU or the accelerator as an offload target processing execution site for executing the offload target processing ([0030-0035 and 0040]: wherein the load balancing engine determines, based on the power readings acquired from power control unit (optionally core utilization information may be used as well), either a CPU or a GPU as an offload target processing execution site for executing the offload target processing) and to, when the offload target processing execution site needs to be changed, change the offload target processing execution site ([0030-0035 and 0040]: wherein a next instruction is received in Fig. 3A the load balancing engine will decide using steps 4-5, whether to change the offload target processing execution site (See Fig. 3A)) and an operation processing offload part configured to receive a request for processing the offload target processing from the application program ([0021 and 0025]: wherein the driver receives a command for processing instructions (offload target processing) from the application program) and to send a processing instruction to cause the offload target processing execution site to execute the offload target processing. ([0021, 0024 and 0035]: wherein driver sends an instruction to a CPU or GPU to execute the offloaded instruction for processing (See Fig. 1))
Sarel does not disclose A CPU that executes a parallel operation nor and to store data to be processed and a processing instruction in a shared memory shared with the offload target processing execution site to cause the offload target processing execution site to execute the offload target processing. Sarel discloses a CPU with multiple cores (see [0022]) and sending instructions to offload to a CPU or GPU, however Sarel does not disclose the CPU using multiple cores to perform a parallel operation nor sending instructions and data to a shared memory.
Sprangle discloses A CPU that executes a parallel operation ([0020 and 0024]: wherein a processor has a number of cores to perform SIMD instructions or parallel application operations) and to store data to be processed and a processing instruction in a shared memory shared with the offload target processing execution site to cause the offload target processing execution site to execute the offload target processing. ([0024-0027]: wherein data and instructions are stored in a shared memory shared with CPU or GPU to cause the CPU or GPU to execute offloaded tasks)
It would have first been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the CPU of Sarel to perform parallel operations as the CPU of Sprangle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because performing parallel operations can be used for the benefit of increased processor performance and efficiency.
It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the offload device of Sarel, which transfers instructions to a CPU or GPU, to include a shared memory to store offloaded data and instructions used by a CPU or GPU as taught in the device of Sprangle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it would be advantageous to use a shared memory, that effectively shares instructions and tasks to be offloaded between a CPU and GPU, controlled by middle-ware or a driver without an OS knowing about the sharing between the CPU and GPU (Sprangle [0025]).
Claim 15 is similarly rejected on the same basis as claim 1 above as claim 15 is the method claim corresponding to the device of claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Sarel and Sprangle discloses The accelerator offload device according to claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above) wherein the operation processing offload part receives the request for processing the offload target processing from the application program through a same interface. (Sarel [0014, 0021 and 0025]: wherein driver receives the command for processing from the application program through an application programming interface (API))
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Sarel and Sprangle discloses The accelerator offload device according to claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above) wherein the operation processing offload part is configured to, upon reception of an instruction to change the offload target processing execution site from the operation destination determination part, change the offload target processing execution site from the accelerator to the CPU or from the CPU to the accelerator. (Sarel [0021, 0024 and 0030-0035 and 0040]: wherein a next instruction is received in Fig. 3A the load balancing engine will decide using steps 4-5, whether to change the offload target processing execution site from the CPU to the GPU or vice versa. Upon the load balancing engine making that determination the driver will change the execution site by sending the next instruction to the CPU instead of the GPU or the GPU instead of the CPU (See Fig. 3A) |Sprangle [0012-0014, 0024 and 0027])
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Sarel and Sprangle discloses A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program for causing a computer to function (Sarel [0075-0076] |Sprangle [0038]) as the accelerator offload device according to claim 1. (see rejection of claim 1 above)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarel, Sprangle, and further in view of Hsu, PGPUB No. 2021/0157383.
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Sarel and Sprangle discloses The accelerator offload device according to claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above).
The combination of Sarel and Sprangle does not disclose further comprising an accelerator power control part configured to perform accelerator power control of lowering power of the accelerator or raising the power of the accelerator to restore the accelerator to a processable state based on information on the offload target processing execution site acquired from the operation destination determination part.
Hsu discloses further comprising an accelerator power control part configured to perform accelerator power control of lowering power of the accelerator or raising the power of the accelerator to restore the accelerator to a processable state based on information on the offload target processing execution site acquired ([0011, 0014 and 0019-0023]: wherein power controller can lower or raise power of a GPU to restore accelerator to a high power setting based on GPU usage value acquired from GPU)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the accelerator offload device of Sarel to include a power controller to control power allocated to a GPU as taught in Hsu. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it would allow the GPU to experience a performance boost with a higher GPU allocation when operating at a high-power setting and allow GPU to produce less heat and be more efficient when operating at a lower power setting (Hsu [0011 and 0031]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarel, Sprangle, and further in view of Park, PGPUB No. 2021/0266792.
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Sarel and Sprangle discloses The accelerator offload device according to claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above).
The combination of Sarel and Sprangle does not disclose further comprising a traffic prediction information provisioning part configured to provide prediction information on an increase or a decrease in a traffic amount to the data processing amount acquisition part.
Park discloses further comprising a traffic prediction information provisioning part configured to provide prediction information on an increase or a decrease in a traffic amount to the data processing amount acquisition part. ([0160, 0167-0169 and 0177-0179]: wherein server provides prediction information on an increase or decrease in a traffic amount to CM SC via interface (element 651))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the hardware offloading in Sarel to be based on an increase or decrease in a traffic amount as the hardware offloading in Park. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it would have been the simple substitution of one known element (offloading workload to a CPU or GPU based on a predicted traffic amount as taught in Park) for another (offloading workload to a CPU or GPU based on power as taught in Sarel) to yield predictable results (offloading workload to a CPU or GPU based on a predicted traffic amount) (MPEP 2143, Example B). Furthermore, offloading based on traffic amount can be used to improve data processing performance by increasing processing speed (Park [0143, 0165 and 0168]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarel, Sprangle, and further in view of Mathieson, PGPUB No. 2011/0213998.
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Sarel and Sprangle discloses The accelerator offload device according to claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above) wherein the CPU includes a plurality of CPU cores (Sarel [0022] |Sprangle [0020])
The combination of Sarel and Sprangle does not disclose and wherein the accelerator offload device further comprises: a CPU performance control part configured to, when the offload target processing is to be executed by the CPU, control CPU performance by scaling in or scaling out a number of processing execution cores allocated from the plurality of CPU cores.
Mathieson discloses and wherein device further comprises: a CPU performance control part configured to, when processing is to be executed by the CPU, control CPU performance by scaling in or scaling out a number of processing execution cores allocated from the plurality of CPU cores. ([0030-0035]: wherein CPU comprises a controller to control CPU performance by enabling/disabling a number of cores to scale in and scale out the number of cores allocated from the plurality of CPU cores)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device including CPU with a number of cores of Sarel to control a number of cores of a CPU to be enabled an/or disabled using a controller as taught in Mathieson. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it would improve power consumption of a CPU (Mathieson [0011 and 0078]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fong, PGPUB No. 2018/0052709 for teaching using utility values associated with workloads of tasks to distribute work between CPU’s and accelerators
Ganesan, PGPUB No. 2018/0052708 for teaching offload engine to offload parallel operations or data within a size limit to an accelerator, otherwise operations are offloaded to a general-purpose CPU core
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY P SPANN whose telephone number is (571)431-0692. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm, EST.
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, Jyoti Mehta can be reached at 571-270-3995. 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.
/COURTNEY P SPANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights