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
This communication is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 14 October 2025. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 14-18, and 20-27 are currently pending. The rejections are as stated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 14-18, and 20-27 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In cases involving computer-implemented functional claims, examiners are instructed to “determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail….” The MPEP explains that “the level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Applicant amended the claims to now recite:
while the primary data center is in an online state, maintaining the secondary data center in an offline state in which energy consumption is reduced relative to power consumption in the online state of the secondary data center; and
in response to the primary data center developing a fault, changing a state of the secondary data center from the offline state to an online state in which the secondary data center is serving customer requests
As described above, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. The specification is silent about “changing a state of the secondary data center from the offline state to an online state in which the secondary data center is serving customer requests
Claims 2, 3, 5-8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20-27 are rejected based on their dependency on the rejected claims 1, 10 and 16. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment/arguments filed 14 October 2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 USC § 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response with respect to the support of the primary data center 410 services customer’s request. However, “The secondary data center 420 may be brought online to serve customer requests in case of a fault in the primary data center 410” does not necessarily mean that the secondary data center was maintained offline. As mentioned previously, the specification is silent about “changing a state of the secondary data center from the offline state to an online state”. As a matter of fact, the word offline is not mentioned in the specification once. Furthermore, the claim limitation “while the primary data center is in an online state, maintaining the secondary data center in an offline state in which energy consumption is reduced relative to power consumption in the online state of the secondary data center. The specification is completely silent about the underline language, maintaining the secondary data center in an offline state and energy consumption is reduced relative to power consumption is not mentioned in the specification at all. Examiner notes, these claim limitations were added to overcome the previous rejection under 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter (see office action mailed on 05 March 2025). However, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hani Kazimi whose telephone number is (571) 272-6745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on (571) 270-1836. 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.
Respectfully Submitted
/HANI M KAZIMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691