DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary amendment filed on 12/27/24 is acknowledged. Claims 1-18 are canceled and claims 19-36 are added and being 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 .
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 19-36 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No 10579121 and 112124310
1) Regarding U.S. Patent No 10579121, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1-7 of 10579121, as discussed below:
Claim 19 includes the features of GPU and its associated hardware for detecting use logging into an application using GPU, identify a user profile based on the user information to set and apply a power profile for the GPU. All the features of claim 19 can be found on claim 1 of patent 10579121.
Claim 20 includes updating the user profile . This feature is found in claim 4 of 10579121.
Claim 22 includes enable or disable capabilities of the GPU during execution, claim 6 of by the claims in 10579121, teaches based on the power consumption of the user profile, limit a frequency push of one or more GPU core (i.e. inhibit or disable the capability of the GPU). Similarly, claim 7 teaches based on the power consumption of the user profile driving (enable) the GPU to higher performance.
Claims 23 includes workload level and user preference, this feature is found in claim 2 of 10579121. This feature is found in claim 2 of 10579121.
Claim 24 includes user’s profile categories. This feature is found in claim 5 of 10579121.
Claims 25-30 and 31-36 recite a GPU and a method having similar feature as recited in claim 19 and therefore rejected accordingly.
2) Similarly, claim 1-7 of U.S. Patent No 112124310 teaches all the limitations of claims 19-36 of the instant application, i.e. GPU and associated hardware and collecting user information to run the workload for each user based on a power consumption data and power profile more performance metrics to adjust at least one of an operating voltage or an operating frequency of the GPU – though not specify using a power profile, one skilled in the art would realize that in order to compare the operating voltages
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: “instruction unit” in claims 19 and 25.
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 § 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 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.
Claims 19-36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maity US 20150100801 in view of Bakalash US 20110169840
Referring to claim 19, Maity teaches an apparatus comprising:
one or more processors (par. 31) and a memory for storage of data [par. 29-35] ; wherein the one or more processors are to:
detect a user logging into an application [Fig. 1, 100] utilizing the processor [Fig. 1 and 4, step 404, par. 33, 95 and 125, user logs in with user ID];
identify and recall a user profile for the user stored in the memory, the user profile being based on user information for the user [Fig. 4, 402-404,par. 97-100 125-126];
utilize the user profile for operation of the processor to set a power profile for the processor [Fig. 4, step 406, par. 127]; and
apply the power profile for the graphics processor during execution for the user [Fig. 4, step 408-410, Fig. 3B, power/usage profile par. 9-12, 128-129]
However, Maity does not explicitly the one or more processors include a graphics processor having multiple cores, the graphics processor including an instruction cache to receive a stream of instructions, an instruction unit to dispatch instructions in the stream of instructions for execution. However, Maity discloses the operation includes components associated with graphic processing [par. 7, 102, display controller camera, game controller etc.] which involve a GPU.
In addition, Bakalash teaches a computer employing multiple GPU for processing graphic operations and display [abstract[ wherein the GPU having an instruction cache [par. 8, cache, buffers] to receive a stream of instructions, an instruction unit to dispatch instructions in the stream of instructions for execution [par. 16 stream of graphics command]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to implement the CPU/GPU hybrid architecture as taught by Bakalash to the system of Maity as an essential means to provide, today's computing arrangements to support a graphics pipeline that drives an external display device to meet today’s demand of high-performance graphic systems [Bakalash, par. 5-10].
Referring to claim 20, Maity and Bakalash teach apparatus of claim 19, wherein the one or more processors are further to: collect additional user information during execution for the user; and update the user profile based on the additional user information to generate an updated user profile; and store the updated user profile in the memory [Maity, par. 4 and 125, Bakalash, par. 23-25)]
Referring to claim 21, Maity and Bakalash teachof claim 19, wherein the power profile includes a power level for the graphics processor. [Maity, Fig. 3B, Bakalash, par. 35-39 and Fig. 2A-D and 5A and associated description]
Referring to claim 22, Maity and Bakalash teach of claim 19, wherein the power profile includes enabling or disabling one or more capabilities of the graphics processor during execution for the user. [Maity, par. 36, 59, 86, 91, 93 103power mode, power state operation, Bakalash, par. 26-27, Fig. 5, display mode based on profile]
Referring to claim 23, Maity and Bakalash teach apparatus of claim 19, wherein the user information includes one or more of: a workload level consumed in execution for the user; and a processor power consumption consumed by the user in execution for the user; and user preferences in operations in execution for the user [Maity, Fig. 3B, usage profile for each user, par. 94-100, Bakalash, power demand, graphic modes par. 35-39 and Fig. 2A-D and associated description]
Referring to claim 24, Maity and Bakalash teach apparatus of claim 19, wherein the user profile includes a category of a plurality of user categories assigned to the user based on the user profile [Maity, abstract; 0005; 0016; 0019; 0126, , Bakalash, par. 17, 21 m and Fig. 2A-D and 5].
Referring to claims 25-30, these claims recite a graphic processor having the features similar to claims 9-24 above, and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Referring to claims 31-3, these claim recite method for having the features similar to claims 19-24 above, and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-4147. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:30pm.
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.
/KIM HUYNH/Primary Patent Examiner,
Art Unit 2176