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), was filed 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/12/2026 has been entered.
Status of Application
The following is a Non-Final Office Action. In response to Examiner's communication on 11/12/2025, Applicant on 02/12/2026, amended Claims 1, 13, 15, 27. Claims 1-27 are now pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on
June 11, 2026. These submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are acknowledged and have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendments are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections set forth in the previous action. The rejections as they pertain to Claims 1-27 are maintained below.
Applicants’ amendments render moot the 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the previous action in view of new and updated grounds for rejection necessitated by Applicants’ amendments. Therefore, these rejections are withdrawn in view of the new grounds for rejection necessitated by Applicants’ amendments, as set forth below.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant firstly argues that the operations of the processor that execute a logistician module do not recite an abstract idea by virtue of the concrete execution constraints on distributed networked devices, analogizing to McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc, 837 F. 3rd 1299, 1316 (Fed. Cir 2016). Examiner respectfully disagrees. In evaluating the limitations for subject matter eligibility, it is necessary to resolve the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations as claimed. The key disputed limitation, “reconfigure the network of devices of the power grid from a current state to a desired state”, does not necessarily correspond to a physical transformation in machine state or operation, but could correspond to an organizational or planning change that would fall under the umbrella of a mental process. See [0066] of Applicant’s specification, “In some embodiments, the system may determine a state machine comprising a list of steps and trigger conditions for each step determined based on the context information for reconfiguring the device network from the current state to the desired state in stages, and the formation plan may be determined based on states defined in the state machine”. In [0093], “In step 920, ((for-id, (Ccap-id, relevancy index (rih,m,) tx)) is passed to the CSM builder 1010 which extract cap id with highest relevancy index and forwards for-id, ((context-id, ri(high) , attributes) ) to a learning engine 1011. In some embodiments, the CSM builder 1010 may comprise the CSM builder 214. The learning engine 1011 determines the best matched CaCSM pattern from the state machine historical archive 1013 and sends CaCSM template and for-id, ((context-id,, attributes) to a provisional CaCSM builder 1012 which determines parameters of the state machine such as the number of states, initial states, triggers, functional compositions, self-forming triggers, and final states with corresponding performance index based on the context ID and attributes stored in the state machine historical archive 1013”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a change in machine state, far from being necessarily a physical mode of operation from the machine, encompasses a change in an abstract means of categorization.
As support for the position that reconfiguration could not be mentally performed by a human in the mind, Applicant further cites the communications that occur between assets and the assigned field coordinator. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this characterization. The mental process of planning and task execution is sufficiently distinct from the distributed machine environment to where it would be performable without the generic computing components claimed. “determine a federation command template…based on a context meta object…select at least one asset class from the asset database…based on comparing…assign…generate…reconfigure the network of devices…” are broad and general limitations that are agnostic to specific hardware and the particular configuration of the assets and “field coordinator”. Accordingly, these distributed assets and field coordinator are additional elements that are more appropriately analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applicant continues the argument that the step of “reconfigure the network of devices” suffices to integrate any alleged recited abstract ideas into a practical application under Step 2A Prong II. This follows analogous logic to above; if “reconfigure” necessarily entailed an alteration to machine state or tangible operation, Applicant’s interpretation of the claims would be vindicated, but as outlined above, in light of Applicant’s specification they are justifiably interpreted as effectuating operations that correspond to a mental process of planning and organization. Therefore, we consider the additional “assets”, and centralized “field coordinator” to be insufficient to amount to a specific improvement in the operation of a computer system, but rather a generic instruction to “Apply It” that does not render the recited abstract ideas as integrated into a practical application, MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, Applicant asserts that the ordered combination of a plurality of limitations is not routine or conventional, and therefore amounts to significantly more under Step 2B. Examiner notes that per MPEP 2106.05(d), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity is only one consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception. For the same reasons as cited above with respect to Step 2A Prong II, the claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more, as additional elements amount to “Apply It”, which is not significantly more in view of 2105.06(F).
Accordingly, the rejections under 35 USC 101 have been updated to address the amendments and maintained below.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-27 under 35 USC 102 have been considered but are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant firstly argues that Muller fails to disclose an “adaptive power grid management system” comprising “a network of devices geographically distributed in a power grid for power transmission and distribution”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In [0047], “Other ways to monitor devices and gather energy load data may include using an external power meter coupled to network components to gather and transmit to the local manager 109 and/or global system manager 100 device, operation and energy load data. Such data is preferably granular, down to the level of operation for specific device components (spindle motor, fan motor, robotic arm operation, etc.), although it could be gathered on a much coarser level, such as the amount of power consumed by whole devices or by data storage facilities. Such data may be gathered from existing technologies or from the local public utility”. Note that the existence of a common, local public utility itself implies that these devices are geographically distributed in a shared power grid. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “a network of devices geographically distributed in a power grid for…”, is that the devices are distributed in a grid that is for power transmission and distribution, not necessitating that the devices themselves are intrinsically tied to power grid components. Examiner further notes that “adaptive power grid management system” is a broad term whose broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses managing the power activity of devices in a shared power grid, as supported by the utility citation.
Applicant subsequently argues that Muller does not disclose “at least one coordinator task that causes an assigned asset to function as a field coordinator”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. For convenience, the citation for this limitation is copied below.
wherein the plurality of tasks includes at least one coordinator task that causes an assigned asset to function as a field coordinator that coordinates the execution tasks of the formation plan in the power grid by a plurality of assets in the federation;
In [0044] of Muller, “Reports or other collected data that sample data storage operations and storage device operations provide meaningful information to global manager 100. Using this information, the global manager 100 (via load component 110 or other similar components) may determine actions to be performed to help conserve power within the building or buildings. Some of these actions may include rescheduling storage operations, redistributing data store operations, transferring operations from one resource to another, defining future storage policies, setting global power conservation filters, and so on”. It is implicit that the global manager coordinates the operation of the various connected devices to adhere to storage policies and operation requirements.
The language of the limitation, or the requirement that “an assigned asset to function as a field coordinator” does not necessitate that the field coordinator undergoes the same dynamic selection process as other assets; we do not need selection from a plurality of assets per the language of limitations “select at least one asset class…by comparing….select at least one asset based on asset statuses….assign each task…”. The only requirement is that we have an asset that functions as a field coordinator by coordinating the execution of tasks, which is within the bounds of the cited portion of Muller above.
Applicant further advances arguments directed towards the final limitation of Claim 1, “causing the selected assets…to execute the plurality of tasks…by the selected assets communicating with at least the field coordinator”, as well as the limitations in Claim 13 directed towards a specific asset replacement process. Examiner notes that these arguments are rendered moot by new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Analogous reasoning applies to Claim 15, which recites substantially similar limitations as Claim 1, and Claim 27, which recites substantially similar limitations as Claim 13.
The rejections have been updated to address the amendments and maintained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
The claims are directed to an apparatus and method. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that is directed to a judicial expectation, namely a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea and will henceforth be used as a representative claim for the 101 rejection until otherwise noted. Claim 1 recites:
An adaptive power grid management system, the system comprises: an asset database storing asset attributes of assets on a network of devices geographically distributed in a power grid for power transmission and distribution; and a processor coupled to the asset database and the network of devices, the processor being configured to execute a logistician module which causes the processor to: determine a federation command template for a formation plan for execution by a federation of assets based on a context meta object for the formation plan, the federation command template comprises a plurality of tasks and class requirements associated with the tasks, wherein the plurality of tasks includes at least one coordinator task that causes an assigned asset to function as a field coordinator that coordinates the execution tasks of the formation plan in the power grid by a plurality of assets in the federation; select at least one asset class from the asset database for each task of the plurality of tasks based on comparing asset class attributes associated with a plurality of asset classes and the class requirements associated with the tasks; for each selected asset class, select at least one asset based on asset statuses associated with the plurality of assets; assign each task of the formation plan including the coordinator task to at least one asset; generate a provisional logistics list comprising selected assets for each of the plurality of tasks of the formation plan; and cause the selected assets of the plurality of assets on the network of devices to execute the plurality of tasks based on the formation plan, wherein the plurality of tasks reconfigure the network of devices of the power grid from a current state to a desired state according to the formation plan by the selected assets communicating with at least the field coordinator according to tasks assigned to each of the selected assets.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers a mental process.
“determine a federation command template for a formation plan…”, “select at least one asset class from the asset database for each task…”, “for each selected asset class, select at least one asset based on asset statuses…”, “assign a task of the formation plan to the at least one asset”, “generate a provisional logistics list…”, recite abstract ideas - namely, mental processes that could be performed by a human with a pen and paper, per the MPEP, merely adapting them into the context of a technological environment with computing parts does not preclude them from being abstract.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Independent Claim 15 recites at least one abstract idea by analogous reasoning.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into practical application. As noted in the MPEP, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exception integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements, such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An adaptive power grid management system, the system comprises: an asset database storing asset attributes of assets on a network of devices geographically distributed in a power grid for power transmission and distribution; and a processor coupled to the asset database and the network of devices, the processor being configured to execute a logistician module which causes the processor to: determine a federation command template for a formation plan for execution by a federation of assets based on a context meta object for the formation plan, the federation command template comprises a plurality of tasks and class requirements associated with the tasks, wherein the plurality of tasks includes at least one coordinator task that causes an assigned asset to function as a field coordinator that coordinates the execution tasks of the formation plan in the power grid by a plurality of assets in the federation; select at least one asset class from the asset database for each task of the plurality of tasks based on comparing asset class attributes associated with a plurality of asset classes and the class requirements associated with the tasks; for each selected asset class, select at least one asset based on asset statuses associated with the plurality of assets; assign each task of the formation plan including the coordinator task to at least one asset; generate a provisional logistics list comprising selected assets for each of the plurality of tasks of the formation plan; and cause the selected assets of the plurality of assets on the network of devices to execute the plurality of tasks based on the formation plan, wherein the plurality of tasks reconfigure the network of devices of the power grid from a current state to a desired state according to the formation plan by the selected assets communicating with at least the field coordinator according to tasks assigned to each of the selected assets.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
As it pertains to Claim 1, the additional elements in the claim include “An adaptive power grid management system, the system comprises: an asset database…”, “a processor coupled to the asset database and the network of devices…”, “and cause the selected assets of the plurality of network of devices to execute the formation plan”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under Step 2A Prong Two.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing an abstract idea.
Independent Claim 15 recites substantially similar additional limitations as Claim 1, and therefore does not integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
Claims 10, 24 recites “wherein the asset database stores real-time asset status information updated via communications with the plurality of assets on the network of devices”.
Claim 12, 26 recites “wherein the processor is further configured to verify …based on real-time health monitoring”.
These do not integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application by analogous reasoning as above.
Claims 2-9, 11, 13-23, 25, 27 do not recite additional elements beyond those found in Claims from which they depend, and therefore do not integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to generic computing components that are merely used
as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than
generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular
technological environment or field of use. Further, looking at the additional
elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already
present when considering the additional elements individually.
Independent Claim 15 recites substantially similar additional limitations as Claim 1, and therefore does not integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 10, 24 recites “wherein the asset database stores real-time asset status information updated via communications with the plurality of assets on the network of devices”.
Claim 12, 26 recites “wherein the processor is further configured to verify …based on real-time health monitoring”.
These do not integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more by analogous reasoning as above.
Claims 2-9, 11, 13-23, 25, 27 do not recite additional elements beyond those found in Claims from which they depend, and therefore do not integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 –
(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.
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muller(US 20200026340 A1).
Claim 1
Muller teaches:
An adaptive power grid management system, the system comprises: In [0021], "Described in detail below is a power sensitive system that manages power consumption in at least a data processing facility, as well as optionally in one or more buildings". In [0022], "Examples of the technology are concerned with systems and methods that monitor, control, or modify data storage systems and their operations so as to conserve power".
an asset database storing asset attributes of assets on a network of devices
In [0031], "Referring to FIG. 1B, a block diagram illustrates the global system server, or manager 100, which may interact with a number of different data processing systems, such as data storage system 140. (Some examples of data storage systems will be discussed with respect to FIGS. 3 and 4.) Global manager 100 may include components such as a global power load component 110, a global command or filter component 120, or other global components 130, and be coupled to an index database 132 to store data described herein. Components 110, 120, and/or 130 act to receive, transmit, monitor, or control data processes and system resources within the data storage system 140 as described herein. Further, global manager 100 may interact with other data processing components in the facility, as well as other power consuming components in the building or campus as noted herein".
geographically distributed in a power grid for power transmission and distribution;
In [0047] of Muller, “Other ways to monitor devices and gather energy load data may include using an external power meter coupled to network components to gather and transmit to the local manager 109 and/or global system manager 100 device, operation and energy load data. Such data is preferably granular, down to the level of operation for specific device components (spindle motor, fan motor, robotic arm operation, etc.), although it could be gathered on a much coarser level, such as the amount of power consumed by whole devices or by data storage facilities. Such data may be gathered from existing technologies or from the local public utility”.
and a processor coupled to the asset database and the network of devices
In [0095], "Those skilled in the relevant art will appreciate that aspects of the invention can be practiced with other communications, data processing, or computer system configurations, including: Internet appliances, hand-held devices (including personal digital assistants (PDAs)), wearable computers, all manner of cellular or mobile phones, multi-processor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, set-top boxes, network PCs, mini-computers, mainframe computers, and the like".
the processor being configured to execute a logistician module which causes the processor to: determine a federation command template for a formation plan for execution by a federation of assets based on a context meta object for the formation plan, the federation command template comprises a plurality of tasks and class requirements associated with the tasks;
Analogizing a storage policy to be such a template, in [0037], "In some examples, the system performs storage operations based on storage policies to conserve power, avoid power spikes, or otherwise meet previously defined power conservation requirements (such as for the building 102). A “storage policy” may be, for example, a data structure that includes a set of preferences or other criteria considered during storage operations. The storage policy is directly or indirectly associated with the power requirements and may determine or define various data storage parameters, such as a storage location, a relationship between components, network pathways, accessible datapipes, retention schemes, compression or encryption requirements, preferred components, preferred storage devices or media, and so on. In other words, a “storage policy” may be a power related storage preference. As described herein, a schedule policy or schedule for performing disk storage operations may be combined with the storage policy to provide for an overall power related storage preference". We consider relevant components and their functionalities under a storage policy to be the relevant federation of assets.
wherein the plurality of tasks includes at least one coordinator task that causes an assigned asset to function as a field coordinator that coordinates the execution tasks of the formation plan in the power grid by a plurality of assets in the federation;
In [0044], “Reports or other collected data that sample data storage operations and storage device operations provide meaningful information to global manager 100. Using this information, the global manager 100 (via load component 110 or other similar components) may determine actions to be performed to help conserve power within the building or buildings. Some of these actions may include rescheduling storage operations, redistributing data store operations, transferring operations from one resource to another, defining future storage policies, setting global power conservation filters, and so on”. It is implicit that the global manager coordinates the operation of the various connected devices to adhere to storage policies and operation requirements.
select at least one asset class from the asset database for each task of the plurality of tasks based on comparing asset class attributes associated with a plurality of asset classes and the class requirements associated with the tasks;
In [0053], "The administrator can then determine, also from the report, that the differences in power consumption are related not to the amount of data, but to specific network components being employed, type of data, processes performed, etc. Thus, the administrator may modify the storage policy for that database to employ more energy efficient data storage components or processes. Alternatively or additionally, the administrator may identify which network components, data storage components, or other components within the enterprise are energy inefficient and look to replacing those components with more energy efficient ones". In [0055], "Upon receiving a report or reports, the system, in step 620, determines an action to be performed based on the report. Referring to FIG. 7A, a flow diagram illustrating a routine 700 for determining an appropriate power conservation action is shown. In step 710, the system receives a report based on data storage operations. The system, in step 720, compares information from the report to the power requirements and one or more known pieces of other information, such as power curves for data storage components".
for each selected asset class, select at least one asset based on asset statuses associated with the plurality of assets;
In [0038], "Additionally or alternatively, the system may implement or utilize schedule policies. A schedule policy specifies when to perform storage operations, how often to perform storage operations, and/or other parameters. The schedule policy, as described below, allows global manager 100 and/or storage manager 310 to determine optimal or near optimal times to perform storage operations that satisfy the power requirements. The schedule policy may also define the use of sub-clients, where one type of data (such as email data) is stored using one sub-client, and another type of data (such as database data) is stored using another sub-client. In these cases, storage operations related to specific data types (email, database, and so on) may be distributed between cells. Further, the global manager and/or storage manager may perform storage operations within a window to satisfy the power requirements, such as by aggregating small storage operations to reduce the number of times a drive is powered up, or by moving an operation to a time period when power consumption in the building is forecasted to be lower".
assign each task of the formation plan Including the coordinator task,
to at least one asset; generate a provisional logistics list comprising selected assets for each of the plurality of tasks of the formation plan;In [0044], "Reports or other collected data that sample data storage operations and storage device operations provide meaningful information to global manager 100. Using this information, the global manager 100 (via load component 110 or other similar components) may determine actions to be performed to help conserve power within the building or buildings. Some of these actions may include rescheduling storage operations, redistributing data store operations, transferring operations from one resource to another, defining future storage policies, setting global power conservation filters, and so on". It is implicit that the global manager coordinates the operation of the various connected devices to adhere to storage policies and operation requirements. We consider the assignment of the coordinator task to be the global manager by default, and that the selected assets for each of the plurality of tasks to correspond to relevant assets and the desired behavior/operations.and cause the selected assets of the plurality of assets on the network of devices to execute the plurality of tasks based on the formation plan, wherein the plurality of tasks reconfigure the network of devices of the power grid from a current state to a desired state according to the formation plan
In [0054], "FIG. 6 shows a flow diagram illustrating a routine 600 for performing a power conservation action based on the energy load report. In step 610, the system receives the energy load report that contains information related to power and data storage operations." In [0055], "Upon receiving a report or reports, the system, in step 620, determines an action to be performed based on the report. Referring to FIG. 7A, a flow diagram illustrating a routine 700 for determining an appropriate power conservation action is show". Example of the execution of such actions is provided in [0057], " For example, the global manager may adjust the environmental components or industrial components to conserve power from those components and allow it to be applied to data storage components. Alternatively, because critical data storage operations might be more important, the global manager may actually adjust the air conditioning within a data center to increase cooling to ensure that this important data storage operation is performed with a lower likelihood of errors. Or air conditioning in other areas of the building or campus may be turned off (or thermostats adjusted higher) to compensate for the increased power needs of the data center".
by the selected assets communicating with at least the field coordinator according to tasks assigned to each of the selected assets.
Note examples of the field coordinator receiving data from components and effecting changes as part of data storage operations in [0039], “ Referring to FIG. 4, a block diagram illustrating interaction between the global cell and data storage cells is shown. Global manager 100 may communicate with a database 132 and a user interface 410 and may contain global load components, global filter components, and other components configured to determine actions based on received data storage information and historic/forecasted power usage”. In [0041], “Global manager 100 is able to perform actions (such as redistributing storage operations), and to apply these actions to the data storage system via a management server to fulfill the power requirements. Global manager 100 receives information used to determine the actions from the data storage servers 430. In this example, the global manager 100 acts as a hub in the data storage system by sending information to modify data storage operations and monitoring the data storage operations to determine how to improve the operations and power requirements”.
Claim 15 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 1.
Claim 2
As to Claim 2, Muller teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
The system of claim 1, wherein the federation command template is determined based on retrieving the federation command template from a logistics list historical archive by matching the context meta object of the formation plan with historical context meta objects stored in a meta objects database.
In [0037], "Storage policies may be stored in storage manager 310, 221, 231, or may be stored in global manager 100 as discussed herein. The previously defined power conservation requirements or plan (“power requirements”) set forth parameters that global manager 100 employs to ensure certain power requirements are met, such as ensuring that power spikes over a threshold do not occur, average power over a given period of time is below a threshold, monthly power expenditures are below thresholds, and so forth, as described herein". We can dynamically alter our selected storage policy based on the costs of a given plan; in [0073], " In block 1430, the system calculates cost differences to reallocate jobs to different locations, to different data processing resources, or both...Alternatively or additionally, the system can allocate a different storage policy if the calculated cost exceeds the threshold (block 1450), or associates the existing, default or other policy to that job (block 1440)".
Claims 16 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 2.
Claim 3
As to Claim 3, Muller teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Muller teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the class requirements associated with the tasks comprise asset location, asset area of responsibility, and/or asset function.
In [0057], "Some devices in the building may even be cycled off, such as auxiliary components 112, in order to meet the power requirements. For example, the global manager may adjust the environmental components or industrial components to conserve power from those components and allow it to be applied to data storage components. Alternatively, because critical data storage operations might be more important, the global manager may actually adjust the air conditioning within a data center to increase cooling to ensure that this important data storage operation is performed with a lower likelihood of errors. Or air conditioning in other areas of the building or campus may be turned off (or thermostats adjusted higher) to compensate for the increased power needs of the data center". In [0070], "Overall, knowing the various power curves of the devices within all cells and having the flexibility to move jobs between devices and among cells, the global manager is able to realize greater power conservation than can be realized by focusing on only a single piece of hardware...Other characteristics can include geographic location of such devices, periodic (e.g., monthly) cost of electricity at such locations".
Claims 17 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 3.
Claim 4
As to Claim 4, Muller teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Muller teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the class requirements associated with the task include requirements for asset functions comprising monitoring, diagnostics, performance management, analytics, security, computing, communication, adaptation, device management, optimization, and/or digital twin capabilities.
In [0051], "The agents can gather or index metadata associated with power consumption and related parameters, including the frequency of access to a file or storage device and the relationship of a file to other files (especially as related to certain storage operations, such as those performed periodically as part of a regular storage policy)". In [0072], "In block 1420, the system determines or gathers data on future data processing jobs. For example, as noted herein, the system may gather data on upcoming data copying jobs to be performed at regularly scheduled intervals (e.g., a full backup being performed during the last weekend of every calendar month)". In [0073], "While this example refers to data storage jobs, any other data processing jobs or other manipulation of data within the enterprise can be considered and managed by this routine".
Claim 18 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 4.
Claim 5
As to Claim 5, Muller teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Muller teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the class requirements comprise observability index, reachability index, resiliency index, and security index requirements.
Pertaining to resiliency in [0075], "Alternatively or additionally, the system may use other information to determine the filter, such as current and forecasted weather conditions indicating a heat spell that may require greater than expected power requirements for air conditioning. The system may algorithmically correlate temperature and internal conditions to kilowatts per gigabyte, and the like". Pertaining to reachability and security, With regards to observability, security, and reachability, in [0037], "The storage policy is directly or indirectly associated with the power requirements and may determine or define various data storage parameters, such as a storage location, a relationship between components, network pathways, accessible datapipes, retention schemes, compression or encryption requirements, preferred components, preferred storage devices or media, and so on". It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill int he art that the means by which a component can be accessed, or its connection to other components, would naturally pertain to observability and reachability.
Claim 19 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 5.
Claim 6
As to Claim 6, Muller teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Muller teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the asset class attributes comprise computing resources, security resources, radio capabilities, and/or sensing capabilities.
In [0070], "When determining the time to complete a data storage operation or job, the system may consider not only the total size of the job (e.g. in MB or GB), but also the data processing speed of components specified or required to perform the job (e.g., MB/sec). Such characteristics can include any metrics or variables described herein as well as other data". In [0043], "One or more sensors 1320 can monitor, for example, the temperature within the data storage device 1302. Such sensors can also monitor other operations within the data storage device, such as the collection of metrics on the operation of read/write head access motors, the seek time for a tape drive, and so forth. The controller 1310 may then forward such metrics or other data gathered from the sensors to the global or local managers via the communications unit. (The metrics may also be used (e.g., by the managers or controller) to generate statistics on such parameters sensed.) The power management software for firmware 342 can also instruct the controller 1310 to gather such sensory data, and/or other data within the data storage device 1302 (e.g., power curves/performance, as noted herein) and report it to the global system manager 100, local manager 109, or both (via the communications unit 1314)".
Claim 20 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 6.
Claim 7
As to Claim 7, Muller teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Muller teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the asset class attributes are determined based on asset model identifiers, version identifiers, and operating systems associated with each of the plurality of assets.
With regards to operating systems, in [0050], "] In step 530, the system transfers the report to a global manager 100. The report can track usage and files or operations associated with such usage. Indeed, as described herein, the system may employ data classification techniques (with associated data or software agents) to monitor data storage operations, which can then be compared to energy load information to track and manage power consumed per data storage operations, even down to individual file or client computer levels. The data classification agent can gather and create an index of power usage and associate such usage with specific devices, files managed/stored, etc". In [0036], " Note: Individual hardware components in the various cells have different power consumption curves, although similar devices, or similar classes of devices, may have similar power curves (e.g., the same Hitachi disk drive has a similar power curve based on particular operations and other factors such as age, environmental conditions, etc.)". It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the operating system and firmware used by a particular hardware would impact its power curve. With regards to model identifiers, in [0093], " Manufacturer data, feedback from monitoring operation of disks, empirical testing, and so forth, can help further determine optimization of such drives and the components within such drives (e.g., some drives may operate more efficiently with a single, larger fan and motor, while another may work best with multiple, smaller motors and fans).With respect to version identifiers, in [0036], "Cells 300 may include software and/or hardware components and modules used in data storage operations. The cells 300 may be transfer cells that function to transfer data during data store operations. The cells 300 may perform other storage operations (or storage management operations) other that operations used in data transfers. For example, cells 300 may perform creating, storing, retrieving, and/or migrating primary and secondary data copies. The data copies may include snapshot copies, backup copies, HSM copies, archive copies, Continuous Data Replication (CDR), virtual machines, and so on". It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that means for managing particular copies of these varieties of copies would necessarily involve some form of identifying versions.
Claim 21 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 7.
Claim 8
As to Claim 8, Muller teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Muller teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to audit the provisional logistics list by comparing the selected asset classes with the combined requirements of tasks in the federation command template.
In [0047], "By comparing a schedule of jobs or storage operations performed by a data storage facility or by a specific device, with externally obtained data such as that from a public utility, the system may match devices/facilities with power consumption to determine how much power was consumed for a specific data storage operation at a specific location and/or by a specific device. Such power consumption information may be broad, generic data, or may be converted to standard units employed by the system, such as the power storage quantity (e.g., megawatt hours per gigabyte)." In [0056], "For example, and as described below, power intensive jobs may be grouped or distributed to meet the power requirements. If, for example, the power requirement is to avoid spikes over a given threshold (e.g., to stay with a total available power level), then power intensive data storage operations may be distributed among various cells so that no one cell generates a power spike". In [0064], "Referring to FIG. 8, a flow diagram illustrating a routine 800 for redistributing data storage jobs is shown. Routine 800 illustrates an example of load redistribution based on a sampling of load statistics. In step 810, the system samples job information from cells used in storage operations. The system may obtain this information from the load report. In step 820, the system defines a job usage factor for each cell. A job usage factor may be a metric to indicate how frequently a data storage device, network device, system resource, cell, etc., is used within the enterprise, such as the number of jobs performed within a backup window as a function of total number of jobs that could be performed. In step 830, the system compares the job usage factors for each cell and determines a distribution pattern for the cells. The system can determine power or energy load requirements for cells or drives based on historical data from the cells, manufacturer's data for a particular drive, etc."
Claim 22 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 8.
Claim 9
As to Claim 9, Muller teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Muller teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the asset statuses comprise assigned task, load, and availability.
In [0050], "In step 530, the system transfers the report to a global manager 100. The report can track usage and files or operations associated with such usage. Indeed, as described herein, the system may employ data classification techniques (with associated data or software agents) to monitor data storage operations, which can then be compared to energy load information to track and manage power consumed per data storage operations, even down to individual file or client computer levels. The data classification agent can gather and create an index of power usage and associate such usage with specific devices, files managed/stored, etc". In [0033], "The cells are logical groupings of components, each with particular power requirements and operations schedules". In [0086], "FIG. 12, an example of a schedule showing jobs and associated cells is shown for Day 1". In [0062], "For example, the global system manager 100 may have stored in the index database 132 a schedule of jobs to be performed and estimated completion times for those jobs and/or an available backup window in which to complete those jobs".
Claim 23 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 9.
Claim 10
As to Claim 10, Muller teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Muller teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the asset database stores real-time asset status information updated via communications with the plurality of assets on the network of devices.
In [0023], "The systems may employ flexible storage policies and may monitor the operation, power consumption, and storage of data for a given period to modify or redistribute storage operations based on results obtained during the monitoring period or determined in forecasts. The system may modify storage operations during the monitoring period, or may use any obtained information to modify future storage operations".
Claim 24 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 10.
Claim 11
As to Claim 11, Muller teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Muller teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one asset is assigned two or more tasks of the plurality of tasks based on availability.
In [0044], "Reports or other collected data that sample data storage operations and storage device operations provide meaningful information to global manager 100. Using this information, the global manager 100 (via load component 110 or other similar components) may determine actions to be performed to help conserve power within the building or buildings. Some of these actions may include rescheduling storage operations, redistributing data store operations, transferring operations from one resource to another, defining future storage policies, setting global power conservation filters, and so on". In [0057], "Alternatively or additionally, two or more jobs may be grouped to ensure that power requirements are below a threshold (e.g., a small data storage job of ten kilobytes is grouped with a larger four-gigabyte job so that a single drive is only powered up once)".
Claim 25 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 11.
Claim 12
As to Claim 12, Muller teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Muller teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to verify asset health of the at least one asset based on real-time health monitoring prior to causing the at least one asset to execute the task.
In [0062], "Further, the manager can obtain power consumption feedback data on the power usage of the components or, at a coarser level, simply receive energy consumption data from a site or building within the cell to recognize that a power threshold may be exceeded".
Claim 26 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 12.
Claim 13
As to Claim 13, Muller teaches all the limitations of Claim 12 as outlined above.
Muller teaches:
The system of claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured to initiate an asset replacement process in the event that an asset fails health assessment, wherein in the asset replacement process ,
the logistician module replaces the asset with another asset to generate a new provisional logistics list for executing the formulation plan.
Regarding asset health checks, which we analogize to the energy efficiency of components in [0053], “The administrator can then determine, also from the report, that the differences in power consumption are related not to the amount of data, but to specific network components being employed, type of data, processes performed, etc. Thus, the administrator may modify the storage policy for that database to employ more energy efficient data storage components or processes. Alternatively or additionally, the administrator may identify which network components, data storage components, or other components within the enterprise are energy inefficient and look to replacing those components with more energy efficient ones”. In [0044], "Using this information, the global manager 100 (via load component 110 or other similar components) may determine actions to be performed to help conserve power within the building or buildings. Some of these actions may include rescheduling storage operations, redistributing data store operations, transferring operations from one resource to another, defining future storage policies, setting global power conservation filters, and so on".
Claim 27 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 13.
Claim 14
As to Claim 14, Muller teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Muller teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of assets comprises field agent devices associated with one or more of a power grid controller, a power grid substation, a microgrid controller, a power plant, a solar farm, a windfarm, and an electric vehicle charging station.
Pertaining to a power plant, in [0075], "The system provides a global view of environmental conditions at the facility, plant, campus, building, enterprise, or other level, as well as a view of data capacity and other requirements. While the term “filter” is used herein, any parameter may be employee". Pertaining to a microgrid controller, in [0021], "Described in detail below is a power sensitive system that manages power consumption in at least a data processing facility, as well as optionally in one or more buildings". In [0022], "Examples of the technology are concerned with systems and methods that monitor, control, or modify data storage systems and their operations so as to conserve power".
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE L XIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/THEODORE XIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights