CTNF 18/953,119 CTNF 90197 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 11/20/2024 for application number 18/953,119. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, and claims. Claims 1 – 11 are presented for examination. Drawings Examiner contends that the drawings filed 11/20/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “generating a first adjustment value according to a difference between data of the power table and the collected data of the plurality of first indices”. The limitation of generating a first adjustment value according to a difference between data of the power table and the collected data of the plurality of first indices, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example “generating a first adjustment value according to a difference between data of the power table and the collected data of the plurality of first indices” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally thinking how much to adjust a value in the power table by based on a visual comparison of data in a table with real time collected data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the limitation of “dynamically collecting data of a plurality of first indices of a processing device when the processing device is operated at runtime, wherein the first plurality of indices are selected from a power table representing operation capacity of the processing device” is an insignificant pre-solution activity because it is mere data gathering at a high level of generality. The remaining limitation of “updating the power table for the processing device according to the first adjustment value” is merely applying the generated value to the table. Such limitations are merely additional elements that are incidental to the primary process that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and are insignificant extra-solution activity or they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of collecting data of a plurality of indices wherein the indices are selected from a power table is an insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering as discussed above, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional function or insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec ). Additionally, the additional element of updating the power data according to the adjustment value amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 2 recites additional limitation of “wherein the operation capacity of the processing device corresponds to operation frequencies of the processing device”, but this limitation is an insignificant pre-solution activity because it corresponds to mere data gathering at a high level of generality. Such limitations are merely additional elements that are incidental to the primary process that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and are insignificant extra-solution activity because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the operation capacity (form the power table) corresponds to the operation frequencies is an insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering as discussed above, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional function or insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec ). The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 3 recites additional limitation of “wherein the plurality of first indices of the processing device comprise a power index, an operation score, a cycle time, number of instructions, a stall ratio and/or a latency”, but this limitation is an insignificant pre-solution activity because it corresponds to mere data gathering at a high level of generality. Such limitations are merely additional elements that are incidental to the primary process that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and are insignificant extra-solution activity because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of specifying the type of indices obtained from the power table is an insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering as discussed above, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional function or insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec ). The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 4 recite the additional elements of “collecting a plurality of second indices when the processing device executes a specific benchmark”, “generating correlations between the plurality of second indices and power consumption of the processing device”, “selecting a subset of second indices from the plurality of second indices according to the correlations”, “generating a second adjustment value according to the subset of second indices”, and “updating the power table for the processing device according to the second adjustment value”. Similar to the analysis described above for claim 1, the “generating correlations between the plurality of second indices and power consumption of the processing device”, “selecting a subset of second indices from the plurality of second indices according to the correlations”, and “generating a second adjustment value according to the subset of second indices” steps are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generating correlations…, selecting a subset…, and generating a second adjustment value… in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally thinking about a comparison between monitored indices and power consumption, mentally thinking about what indices to be monitored, and mentally thinking about an adjustment value to be applied. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “collecting a plurality of second indices when the processing device executes a specific benchmark” is an insignificant pre-solution activity because it is mere data gathering at a high level of generality. Additionally, the limitation of “updating the power table for the processing device according to the second adjustment value” is merely applying the generated value to the table. Such limitations are merely additional elements that are incidental to the primary process that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and are insignificant extra-solution activity or they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of collecting a plurality of second indices is an insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering as discussed above, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional function or insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec ). Additionally, the additional element of updating the power table according to the second adjustment value amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 5 recites additional limitation of “wherein the plurality of second indices of the processing device comprise a power index, an operation score, a cycle time, number of instructions, a stall ratio and/or a latency” but this limitation is an insignificant pre-solution activity because it corresponds to mere data gathering at a high level of generality. Such limitations are merely additional elements that are incidental to the primary process that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and are insignificant extra-solution activity because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of specifying the type of indices obtained from the power table is an insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering as discussed above, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional function or insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec ). The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 6 recites additional limitation of “wherein the correlations are generated using linear regression”. The limitation of generating using linear regression, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations. For example, “the correlations are generated using linear regression” in the context of this claim encompasses calculating correlations using linear regression. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates “the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 7 recites additional limitation of “wherein the power table is updated when the difference between the data of the power table and the collected data of the plurality of first indices exceeds a predetermined threshold”. The limitation of “when the difference between the data of the power table and the collected data of the plurality of first indices exceeds a predetermined threshold”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations. For example, “the difference between the data of the power table and the collected data of the plurality of first indices exceeds a predetermined threshold” in the context of this claim encompasses using math to calculate the difference and make a judgement based on the mathematical results. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates “the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 9 recite a similar concept to claim 1 with similarity in limitations. The analysis on these claims is similar to that of claim 1 and they reach the same conclusion for the same reasons. They are claims directed to an abstract idea (mental processes with insignificant extra-solution activity and applying) and do not provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. Claim 10 recite a similar concept to claim 4 with similarity in limitations. The analysis on these claims is similar to that of claim 4 and they reach the same conclusion for the same reasons. They are claims directed to an abstract idea (mental processes with insignificant extra-solution activity and applying) and do not provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. Claim 11 recites additional limitation of “the collector, the calculator and the adjuster are implemented with an integrated circuit”, but this limitation is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of indicating the collector, calculator, and adjuster are on an integrated circuit amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim is not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsu et al. (hereinafter as Hsu ) PGPUB 2019/0332157 . As per claim 1 , Hsu teaches a power control method comprising: dynamically collecting data of a plurality of first indices of a processing device when the processing device is operated at runtime [0025: (monitors for obtaining power consumption and performance data) and 0027, 0032-0033, and 0039: (at runtime, when cores execute an application, monitors are sampled to determine runtime statistics to determine a power index and performance index (first indices)] , wherein the first plurality of indices are selected from a power table representing operation capacity of the processing device [FIG. 2 and 0017-0018 and 0027: (column 3 and column 4 of the power table have power index and performance index)] generating a first adjustment value according to a difference between data of the power table and the collected data of the plurality of first indices [0039: (based on the difference between estimated indices from the runtime statistics and indices in the power table, the power table is updated) and 0018: (calculate an adjustment (e.g. a scaling factor) to the index and applying such adjustment to modify the power table)] ; and updating the power table for the processing device according to the first adjustment value [0018: (apply the calculated adjustment to the power table)] . As per claim 2 , Hsu teaches the power control method of claim 1, wherein the operation capacity of the processing device corresponds to operation frequencies of the processing device [0020: (processing capabilities measured by million instructions per second) or 0016, 0027, and FIG. 2: (frequency)]. As per claim 3 , Hsu teach the power control method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of first indices of the processing device comprise a power index, an operation score, a cycle time, number of instructions, a stall ratio and/or a latency [0027 and 0033]. As per claim 4 , Hsu teach the power control method of claim 1, further comprising: collecting a plurality of second indices when the processing device executes a specific benchmark [0017, 0028, 0031, and 0041: (different benchmark applications may be performed, and runtime statistics are obtained at different times such as when executing a different benchmark application (second indices)]; generating correlations between the plurality of second indices and power consumption of the processing device [0041 and FIG. 7 step 720: (estimating a second pair of indices associated with the second operating point (correlations of second indices and power consumption)]; selecting a subset of second indices from the plurality of second indices according to the correlations [0041: (select from the power table indices that has least power index) or FIG. 2 and 0017-0018 and 0027: (column 3 and column 4 of the power table have power index and performance index)]; generating a second adjustment value according to the subset of second indices [0018: (calculation of adjustment or scaling factor; it is reasonable the same method of calculations is made because it is simply repeating the process at a different time); and updating the power table for the processing device according to the second adjustment value [0018 and 0041 and FIG. 7 step 730: (applying the calculated adjustment to the power table to update the power table)]. As per claim 5, Hsu teach the power control method of claim 4, wherein the plurality of second indices of the processing device comprise a power index, an operation score, a cycle time, number of instructions, a stall ratio and/or a latency [0027 and 0033]. As per claim 6 , Hsu teach the power control method of claim 4, wherein the correlations are generated using linear regression [0035: (linear function)]. As per claim 7 , Hsu teach The power control method of claim 1, wherein the power table is updated when the difference between the data of the power table and the collected data of the plurality of first indices exceeds a predetermined threshold [0039 and FIG. 6 step 650: (if the difference between estimate indices (from the collected runtime statistics) and the indices from the table is greater than a threshold, the power table is adjusted)]. Claim 9 is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale. Hsu further teaches a collector [0025, 0032, and FIG. 1 monitors 180] ; a calculator [0018 and FIG. 1: (multi-core system 110)] ; and an adjuster [0025 and FIG. 1: (core controller 170 may adjust the power and performance indices in the power table 150)] . Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 4 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 11 , Hsu teach the power control system of claim 9, wherein the collector, the calculator and the adjuster are implemented with an integrated circuit [0002 and 0019] . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (hereinafter as Hsu ) PGPUB 2019/0332157, and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter as AAPA ) . As per claim 8 , Hsu teach the power control method of claim 1, wherein initial data of the power table is null, [0033: (when system 110 powers on, the system either generates the power table according a predetermined process or load the power table from storage; generating the power table means making and filling the table, and thus the table is initially null)]. Hsu does not explicitly teach the collected data of the plurality of first indices become the initial data of the power table. However, AAPA indicates that a conventional approach involves executing predefined benchmarks, observing the computing scenarios, and then filling the power table based on the observations [0002]. Thus AAPA does teach the collected data of the plurality of first indices become the initial data of the power table. The combination of Hsu with AAPA yields generating a power table upon power up by performing a process that involves executing a predefined benchmark, and creating and filling the power table based on observed measurements obtained while performing the benchmark test. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use AAPA’s teachings of generating/creating the power table based on observations obtained while running a benchmark test in Hsu. AAPA teaches the predetermined process for generating the power table. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to generate and fill the power table in Hsu with observations obtained during a benchmark test because it is how a power table is conventionally generated [AAPA 0002] . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is reminded that in amending in response to a rejection of claims, the patentable novelty must be clearly shown in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited and the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid such references and objections. See 37 CFR §1.111(c) . Tsai et al. (PGPUB 2026/0104919) teaches that conventional techniques use power tables built from benchmark measurements [0003]. Bhandaru et al. (PGPUB 2014/0195829) teaches a power table can be populated based on information calculated in power consumption [0024]. Hsu et al. (PGPUB 2016/0342198) teaches power/DVFS tables. Wang et al. (PGPUB 2017/0212575) teaches power tables and a delta power table. Oehler et al. (PGPUB 2004/0003303) teaches adjusting power tables [0040]. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANNY CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 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, Andrew J. Jung can be reached at 5712703779. 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. /DANNY CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175 Application/Control Number: 18/953,119 Page 2 Art Unit: 2175 Application/Control Number: 18/953,119 Page 3 Art Unit: 2175 Application/Control Number: 18/953,119 Page 4 Art Unit: 2175 Application/Control Number: 18/953,119 Page 5 Art Unit: 2175 Application/Control Number: 18/953,119 Page 6 Art Unit: 2175 Application/Control Number: 18/953,119 Page 7 Art Unit: 2175 Application/Control Number: 18/953,119 Page 8 Art Unit: 2175 Application/Control Number: 18/953,119 Page 9 Art Unit: 2175 Application/Control Number: 18/953,119 Page 10 Art Unit: 2175 Application/Control Number: 18/953,119 Page 11 Art Unit: 2175 Application/Control Number: 18/953,119 Page 12 Art Unit: 2175 Application/Control Number: 18/953,119 Page 13 Art Unit: 2175 Application/Control Number: 18/953,119 Page 14 Art Unit: 2175 Application/Control Number: 18/953,119 Page 15 Art Unit: 2175 Application/Control Number: 18/953,119 Page 16 Art Unit: 2175 Application/Control Number: 18/953,119 Page 17 Art Unit: 2175
Prosecution Insights