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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), filed on 10/2/2025 in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/2/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-25 are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments are moot in light of the new ground of rejections set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-25 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.
a) Claim 1 recites “determine, based on the schedule, a change to be made to at least one power state of a node from the set of nodes based on the schedule, the change including placing nodes corresponding to the maximum number of nodes of the set of nodes in the power saving mode.” The scope of this limitation cannot be definitely determined, because the limitation recites “a change” for “a node” but later recites that the same change including placing nodes… in the power saving mode.” It is therefore unclear whether the change was for a node or multiple nodes. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner interprets as any possibility. Claims 2-21 are similarly rejected.
b) Claim 22 recites “determine, based on the schedule, a power change to be made to the at least one resource of each of the subset of nodes based on the schedule, the change including placing nodes corresponding to the number of nodes of the set of nodes in the power saving mode.” The relationship between the recited “the subset of nodes” and “the number of nodes” are unclear. Based on this limitation, they are the same as the subject of the same “change” step, but based on the preceding limitation, they are not necessarily the same. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner assumes any relationship. Claims 23-24 are similarly rejected.
c) Claim 25 recites “determine, based on the schedule, a change to be made to at least one power state of the set of power states based on the schedule, the change including placing nodes corresponding to the maximum number of nodes of the set of nodes in the power saving mode”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
9. Claims 1, 5-8, 10-15, 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guim Bernat et al (US 2021/0109584, submitted by IDS, hereafter “Guim”) in view of Zimmer et al (US 2006/0129675).
As to claim 1, Guim discloses an edge device comprising:
memory including instructions; and
processing circuitry to implement an edge provider device and to execute the instructions including operations to:
identify power state information corresponding to resources available on each of a set of nodes of an edge cluster (figure 12, “DETERMINE A LIST OF RESOURCES RELATED TO THE COMPONENT USING THE LONG-TERM SLA”; “SCHEDULE A TASK FOR THE COMPONENT BASED ON THE LONG-TERM SLA, A CURRENT BATTERY LEVEL, A CURRENT ENERGY HARVEST RA TE, OR AN AMOUNT OF POWER REQUIRED”; [0182], “Another example implementation is an edge computing system, including respective edge processing devices and nodes to invoke or perform the operations of Examples 1-25, or other subject matter described herein”);
receive an indication of unscheduled applications for scheduling on the set of nodes of the edge cluster (figure 12, “DETERMINE A LIST OF RESOURCES RELATED TO THE COMPONENT USING THE LONG-TERM SLA”; “SCHEDULE A TASK FOR THE COMPONENT BASED ON THE LONG-TERM SLA, A CURRENT BATTERY LEVEL, A CURRENT ENERGY HARVEST RA TE, OR AN AMOUNT OF POWER REQUIRED”);
schedule the unscheduled applications to execute on a subset of nodes of the set of nodes (figure 12, “SCHEDULE A TASK FOR THE COMPONENT BASED ON THE LONG-TERM SLA, A CURRENT BATTERY LEVEL, A CURRENT ENERGY HARVEST RA TE, OR AN AMOUNT OF POWER REQUIRED”; [0182], “Another example implementation is an edge computing system, including respective edge processing devices and nodes to invoke or perform the operations of Examples 1-25, or other subject matter described herein”);
determine, based on the schedule, a change to be made to at least one power state of a node from the set of nodes based on the schedule (figure 12, step 1208, “CAUSE A RESOURCE OF THE UST OF RESOURCES TO INITIATE THE TASK FOR THE COMPONENT ACCORDING TO THE SCHEDULE”; [0148], “The technique 1200 includes an optional operation 1208 to cause a resource of the list of resources to initiate the task for the component according to the schedule. In an example, the technique 1200 includes an operation to dynamically adjust power consumption of the component. In an example, the technique 1200 includes dynamically increase a number of resources on the list of resources related to the component based on the current battery level at the edge device or the current energy harvest rate at the edge device”; [0094], “An edge system may proactively react based on predictions (e.g., estimates) or changes to power availability”); and
cause the edge cluster to operate according to the change (figure 12, step 1208, “CAUSE A RESOURCE OF THE UST OF RESOURCES TO INITIATE THE TASK FOR THE COMPONENT ACCORDING TO THE SCHEDULE”; [0148], “The technique 1200 includes an optional operation 1208 to cause a resource of the list of resources to initiate the task for the component according to the schedule. In an example, the technique 1200 includes an operation to dynamically adjust power consumption of the component. In an example, the technique 1200 includes dynamically increase a number of resources on the list of resources related to the component based on the current battery level at the edge device or the current energy harvest rate at the edge device”; [0108], “When power availability is or will be too low to process at a normal or elevated level, the system may smart limit the connectivity, in an example, such as from 25 to 10 MB of processing as a dynamic change based on the SLA and the power availability”).
However, Guim does not expressly disclose such that a maximum number of nodes of the set of nodes are in a power saving mode or that the change including placing nodes corresponding to the maximum number of nodes of the set of nodes in the power saving mode. Zimmer discloses a concept of enable a maximum number of nodes of a set of nodes to be in a power saving mode (See [0033]-[0035], e.g., “In some embodiments, the front-end server may choose to select a new CurrentServer that is already in wake mode, based on policy and power considerations…If both of these criteria are true, then the job may be distributed to the CurrentServer i in block 427”, indicating that when a single server could handle the load, no other servers would be waken up, such that a maximum number of nodes can be in a power saving mode. Also see [0018], “If the work load permits, servers may be automatically throttled down or put into sleep mode to save power”) and a change including placing nodes corresponding to the maximum number of nodes of the set of nodes in the power saving mode ([0018], “If the work load permits, servers may be automatically throttled down or put into sleep mode to save power”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Guim and Zimmer. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to save power (Zimmer, [0018]).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 22, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 25, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 5, Guim discloses the edge device of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further to:
retrieve a list of node groups, wherein nodes of the node groups are arranged based on capabilities of the nodes ([0038]);
select a node operating at less than fully powered from a particular node group based on a required capability of one of the unscheduled applications (Figure 12); and
increase power to the node according to the required capability ([0099], “When energy available (e.g., predicted power harvesting increases, or available power increases), the gateway may add resources to the application (e.g., increase performance to 200 sensors per hour), such as to catch up from the low processing period.”).
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 6, Guim discloses the edge device of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further to schedule applications and determine power state changes for a plurality of edge clusters of a network (Figure 3).
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 7, Guim, discloses the edge device of claim 1, wherein the change to the at least one power state includes a change in power source for the node from a non-renewable energy source to a renewable energy source based on a battery level for the node ([0102], “At times of peak renewable power availability, when batteries are also fully charged, orchestrators may receive notifications from power sources, and select a low-cost mode of operation and revise cost functions for scheduling renewably powered resources.”).
As to claim 21, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 8, Guim discloses the edge device of claim 1, wherein the change to the at least one power state includes lowering a power state of the node of the set of nodes based on an identification that the node is operating using a non-renewable energy source and an application scheduled on the node is capable of being scheduled on a second node operating using a renewable energy source ([0102], “At times of peak renewable power availability, when batteries are also fully charged, orchestrators may receive notifications from power sources, and select a low-cost mode of operation and revise cost functions for scheduling renewably powered resources”).
As to claim 10, Guim discloses the edge device of claim 1, wherein the change to the at least one power state includes a change to a resource power state of the node ([0094], “An edge system may proactively react based on predictions (e.g., estimates) or changes to power availability”; [0108], “When power availability is or will be too low to process at a normal or elevated level, the system may smart limit the connectivity, in an example, such as from 25 to 10 MB of processing as a dynamic change based on the SLA and the power availability”).
As to claim 11, Guim discloses the edge device of claim 1, wherein to cause the edge cluster to operate according to the change, the processing circuitry is further to move an application off of the node, cause the node to be reconfigured to a different power state, and move the application back to the node ([0108], “processing may be limited, such as to a smaller set of images over a timeframe than normal or no images over the timeframe (e.g., a second, a few seconds, a minute, etc.). When no images are processed during a timeframe, in an example, the images may be processed at a later time (e.g., after the timeframe ), such as when more energy is available”, wherein the stopping of the image processing fucntion is equivalent to moving the image processing function/application off of the node. It is to be noted that the claim does not require de-installing the application).
As to claim 12, Guim discloses the edge device of claim 1, wherein the edge device is a second node of the edge cluster (Figure 4, “Edge Node 2”).
As to claim 13, Guim discloses the edge device of claim 1, wherein the indication of unscheduled applications includes an identifier of an unscheduled application, a resource needed to execute the unscheduled application, and at least one service level requirement for execution of the unscheduled
application (figure 12, wherein an identifier of the unscheduled application is implied in order to schedule the task/application).
As to claim 14, Guim discloses the edge device of claim 1, wherein the edge device and the edge cluster are co-located in a same physical housing or unit ([0033]).
As to claim 23, Guim discloses the edge device of claim 22, wherein the power information includes a current operation power of the at least one resource or a potential operation power of the at least one resource, including at least one of on, off, operating according to a p-state, operating according to a c-state, or operating at a power level differing from another resource ([0094], “An edge system may proactively react based on predictions (e.g., estimates) or changes to power availability”; also see [0102], “orchestrators may receive notifications from power sources, and select a low-cost mode of operation and revise cost functions for scheduling renewably powered resources. Responsively, other parts of the edge where power vailability may be limited, may request migration of a portion of their workload to locations where surplus power is locally available”).
As to claim 24, Guim discloses the edge device of claim 22, wherein to determine the power change includes to determine that the at least one resource is currently sufficiently powered to be fully available to execute the application, while the node is not fully powered ([0102], “orchestrators may receive notifications from power sources, and select a low-cost mode of operation and revise cost functions for scheduling renewably powered resources. Responsively, other parts of the edge where power vailability may be limited, may request migration of a portion of their workload to locations where surplus power is locally available”, wherein the edge can be considered a node).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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 of this title, 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.
12. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
13. Claims 2-4 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guim, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wong et al (US 11395225).
As to claim 2, Guim discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the change includes at least one of activating the node from a powered off state or deactivating the node to the powered off state. Wong discloses a concept of change of power including at least one of activating the node from a powered off state or deactivating the node to the powered off state (col. 12, lines 43-60, “a processor may include one or more cores, which may be selectively powered on or off to thereby change the overall state of the device's power consumption. As yet another example, a software application may include a subroutine that executes periodically to perform one or more operations, and that subroutine may be enabled, disabled, or performed at a different period in order to change the effective power consumption of the device over a given period of time. In general, a "higher power state" may describe the state of a device that has enabled or powered a particular combination of hardware and/or software to perform a particular task, as compared to a "lower power state" which may refer to the state of a device that has disabled or reduced power to that combination of hardware and/or software such that the particular task is no longer being performed.”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Guim with Wong. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to adjust power states (Wong, col. 2, lines 44-60).
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 3, Guim-Wong discloses the edge device of claim 1, wherein the change to the at least one power state includes at least one of causing a resource of the node to enter a performance state including a frequency or voltage scaling of the resource or activating the resource while leaving at least one other resource deactivated (Wong, col. 12, lines 44-60).
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4. The edge device of claim 1, wherein to schedule the unscheduled applications, the edge provider device is further to change the node of at least one already scheduled application to minimize fully powered nodes (Wong, col. 12, lines 43-60, “a processor may include one or more cores, which may be selectively powered on or off to thereby change the overall state of the device's power consumption. As yet another example, a software application may include a subroutine that executes periodically to perform one or more operations, and that subroutine may be enabled, disabled, or performed at a different period in order to change the effective power consumption of the device over a given period of time. In general, a "higher power state" may describe the state of a device that has enabled or powered a particular combination of hardware and/or software to perform a particular task, as compared to a "lower power state" which may refer to the state of a device that has disabled or reduced power to that combination of hardware and/or software such that the particular task is no longer being performed”).
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 4.
14. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guim, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Romero et al (US 2004/0199632).
As to claim 9, Guim discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the change to the at least one power state includes maintaining a same number of active nodes in the edge cluster while deactivating at least one node. Romero discloses a concept of maintaining a same number of active nodes while deactivating at least one node ([0049], “Assuming that partition 18b is selected as the donor partition, the WLM (e.g., Workload Manager 14) will activate one or more reserve processors in partition 18c, and concurrently deactivate one or more processors in partition 18b. In an embodiment of the invention, the number of reserve processors activated will be the same as the number of active processors deactivated. Thus, if one reserve processor is activated in partition 18c, one active processor will be deactivated in partition 18b”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Guim with Romero. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to maintain a same number of processing powers (Romero, col. 2, lines 44-60).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUA FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5311. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUA FAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458