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 6/28/2026.
2. Claims 1-22 are presented for examination.
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.
3. Claim(s) 1-14 and 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuko Eckert (“Eckert”), U.S. Patent Publication No 2019/0065243. And Sikora et al. (“Sikora”), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0004904.
Regarding Claims 1, 16, 21 and 22, Eckert teaches a packet processing and communication system [Fig-1-2], comprising:
multiple subsystems (cores 110A-N/compute units 215 A-N, memory 215), to process and communicate packets [Para: 0018(as cores generate “memory access request” where the request includes “read request and/or write request”, para 0019 and also see 0034-0035)]; and
a power management controller (“power management unit” 125 or 210), to:
obtain one or more performance degradation metrics [Para: 0028(“Performance counters 175A-N can track a variety of different performance metrics, including the instruction execution rate of cores … and/or other metrics”)], which indicate degradations in performance of the subsystems in processing the packets [Para: 0047(as “memory controller 220 conveys indications of how many critical requests are currently stored in queue 225 … to system management unit 210” where the critical request in queue represent “requests may be deemed critical based on a likelihood they will negatively impact performance (i.e., reduce performance) if they are delayed” see 0020, i.e., performance degradation) and 0055(“performance degradation due to lower memory throughput”] ;
evaluate a cost function defined over the performance degradation metrics [Para: 0015-0016, 0058, evaluating cost function of pending tasks of processor in terms of “a power budget that is transferred is inversely proportional to a number of critical memory requests stored in the pending request queue” considering “different weighted factor”, “consumed bandwidth” “priority of memory request” etc.]; and
allocate respective electrical power quotas to the subsystems, aiming to minimize the cost function [Para: 0047 and 000055(“Power allocation unit 415 is configured to allocate a power budget to each of compute units 405A-N”)].
Eckert does not disclose expressly wherein the cost function assigns two or more different weights to two or more respective different types of the performance degradations metrics obtained for a given subsystem among the subsystems.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., modeling based on performance based metrics for an asset), Sikora teaches evaluating cost function for plurality of performance degradation metrics (for an asset) [Abstract and 0006 (“plurality of performance metrics are associated with respective performance degradation scenarios for the asset”)]; and
wherein the cost function assigns two or more different weights to two or more respective different types of the performance degradations metrics obtained for a given subsystem among the subsystems [Para: 0005(“a weight is applied to the respective performance metrics of the plurality of performance metrics based on sensor data associated with the asset to determine a plurality of weighted performance metrics associated with an operating condition for the asse”)].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Eckert’s teachings of evaluate a cost function defined over the performance degradation metrics with Sikora’s teachings of wherein a cost function assigns two or more different weights to two or more respective different types of the performance degradations metrics obtained for a given subsystem among the subsystems would allow Eckert to avoid asset settings configured based on user knowledge or written instructions with respect to an asset generally results in inefficiencies and/or decreased performance [Sikora, Para: 0003] and to enhance performance for an asset or component.
Regarding Claim 2, Eckert teaches wherein: the system further comprises one or more Power Management (PM) circuits to limit power consumption of at least one of the subsystems [Para: 0016 and 0026(“system management unit 125 uses dynamic voltage and frequency scaling (DVFS) to change the frequency and/or voltage of a processing unit to limit the processing unit's power consumption”)]; and
the power management controller is to allocate the electrical power quotas by controlling the PM circuits [Para: 0015(“system management unit reduces the first power budget of the memory subsystem by transferring a first portion of the first power budget from the memory subsystem to the one or more processors”)].
Regarding Claim 3, Eckert teaches wherein at least one of the PM circuits comprises a current limiter circuit to limit input current to a corresponding subsystem [Para: 0030(“operating point is limited … operating voltage up to the specified values for a current set of conditions”).
Regarding Claim 4, Eckert teaches wherein at least one of the PM circuits comprises a voltage/frequency control circuit to set one or both of (i) an operating voltage and (ii) a clock speed, of a corresponding subsystem [Para: 0026(“system management unit 125 uses dynamic voltage and frequency scaling (DVFS) to change the frequency and/or voltage of a processing unit to limit the processing unit's power consumption”)].
Regarding Claims 5 and 17, Eckert teaches wherein at least one of the performance degradation metrics is indicative of a rate of packet dropping by one or more of the subsystems [Para: 0042 (“service-rate threshold is still not met after giving priority to the above three request types”)].
Regarding Claims 6 and 18, Eckert teaches wherein at least one of the performance degradation metrics is indicative of a number of pending packets in one or more of the subsystems [Para: 0015(pending request in queue)].
Regarding Claims 7 and 19, Eckert teaches wherein at least one of the performance degradation metrics is indicative of a latency in processing the packets in one or more of the subsystems [Para: 0015(“transferring a first portion of the first power budget from the memory subsystem to the one or more processors responsive to determining the one or more processors have tasks to execute” suggests a latency in execution of instruction and 0028(“instruction execution rate”)].
Regarding Claims 8 and 20, Eckert teaches wherein at least one of the performance degradation metrics is indicative of an extent of backpressure, which throttles reception of packets in one or more of the subsystems from one or more other subsystems [Para: 0028(performance counter representing instruction cache where the instructions are throttled to delay due to back pressure, see 0016)].
Regarding Claim 9, Eckert teaches wherein at least one of the performance degradation metrics is indicative of an extent of flow control, which throttles transmission of packets from one or more of the subsystems to one or more other subsystems [Para: 0016(“limits the number of memory request performed per second …”)].
Regarding Claim 10, Eckert teaches wherein the power management controller is to run an iterative process that obtains updated values of the performance degradation, re-evaluates the cost function over the updated values, and reallocates the electrical power quotas based on the re-evaluated cost function [Para:0015-0016 and 0055(power is reallocated)].
Regarding Claim 11, Eckert teaches wherein the power management controller is to enforce the allocated electrical power quotas on the subsystems only when the communication system as a whole exceeds a specified power consumption [Para: 0047(as “total amount of power available to power allocation unit 415 to be dispersed to the components can be capped for the host system” due to the fact total power consumption may exceed a specific power limit)].
Regarding Claim 12, Eckert teaches wherein the power management controller is to modify the cost function in response to a hint indicative of a pattern of packet processing or communication in the system [Para: 0028(performance counters 175A-N tracks verity of performance metrics including pattern of packet)].
Regarding Claim 13, Eckert teaches wherein the power management controller is to modify the cost function in response to a hint indicative of a type of application running in the system [Para: 0028(performance counters 175A-N tracks verity of performance metrics including type of packet such as bandwidth utilization, cache hit rate etc.)].
Regarding Claim 14, Eckert teaches wherein the power management controller is to modify the cost function in response to a hint indicative of a ratio between east-west traffic and north-south traffic in the system [Para: 0016(memory requests are delayed) and 00232(“controller 130 restricts the total number of requests that can be performed to memory 160”)].
4. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckert and Sikora as set forth above (hereinafter “Eckert-Sikora”) and Davoudi et al. (“Davoudi”), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0207594.
Regarding Claim 15, Eckert-Sikora teaches power management controller is to evaluate the cost function assigns to two or more different weights to respective different types of degradation metrics by calculating a weighted value of a metrics [Eckert, Para: 0015 and Sikora, Para: 0005, 0006]. Eckert-Sikora does not disclose expressly evaluate the cost function calculating from a weighted sum of the two or more types of the performance degradation metrics.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., mitigating performance degradation in a circuit), Davoudi teaches performance metric [Para: 0007] regulation [para: 0050] and a cost function calculating from a weighted sum of the performance degradation metrics [Para: 0032(“the metric is a weighted sum of the disturbance measures. For instance, calculating the cost metric …”)].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Eckert-Sikora’s teachings of power management controller is to evaluate the cost function by calculating a weighted value of a metrics with Davoudi’s teachings of evaluating cost function calculating from a weighted sum of performance degradation metrics would allow Eckert-Sikora to more closely determine temporal position of the cost function in order to reduce performance degradation based on user requirement and to have an efficient system.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 16, 22 and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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