DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 1-19 are rejected, grounds follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the energy" in Claim 10 line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of applying art, Examiner has interpreted the limitation as referring to “the BTM energy” of, inter alia, Claim 1’s “behind-the-meter (BTM) energy”.
Examiner suggests correction to “the BTM energy” if this assumption is accurate, or amending the claim to make the limitation clearly distinct should “the energy” not be referring to the same feature as “the BTM energy”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McNamara et al., US Pg-Pub 2021/0035242.
Regarding Claims 1, 12, and 16 McNamara discloses:
(Claim 1 representative) A network (see e.g. figs. 1-12, particularly figs. 8-9) comprising a parent system (Remote Master Control system 262, 300, see [0116]) connected via data communication to a child system, ([0117] “the remote master control system 262 may communicate with components within the arrangement of FIG. 2 using various communication technologies, including wired and wireless communication technologies. For instance, the remote master control system 262 may use wired (not illustrated) or wireless communication to communicate with datacenter control systems or other computing systems at the flexible datacenters 220 and the traditional datacenters 260.”)
wherein the child system (e.g. “Flexible Data center” see figs., 2, 9) is located at a source of behind-the-meter (BTM) energy ([0077] “In the illustrated embodiment of FIG. 2, the BTM equipment includes flexible datacenters 220.”
to perform a computational task assigned to the child system by the parent system using the BTM energy. ([0073] “Some embodiments may involve using one or more control systems to direct time-insensitive (e.g., interruptible) computational tasks to computational hardware, such as central processing units (CPUs) and graphics processing units (GPUs), sited behind the meter; see also [0194] describing operation of a queue system for directing tasks to various data centers.)
Regarding Claims 12 and 16, these claims recite substantively the same subject matter, except embodied as a method and a system, respectively. Mutatis mutandis, these claims are likewise anticipated by the disclosure of McNamara for the same reasons articulated with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claims 2, 14, and 19 McNamara discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
McNamara further discloses:
(Claim 2 representative) wherein network is configured to enable the child system to perform the computational task ([0210] “once ramped-up, the datacenter control system or the remote master control system may direct one or more computing systems to perform predetermined computational operations. In some embodiments, the predetermined computational operations may include the execution of one or more distributed computing processes, parallel processes, and/or hashing functions, among other types of processes.”) when the BTM energy available exceeds an amount for performing a primary task ([0111] “The information used by the remote master control system 262 or another component may include data associated with the computational operations to be performed, such as deadlines, priorities (e.g., high vs. low priority tasks)”) at the source of the BTM energy. (e.g. [0240] “the weighted analysis may involve assigning a greater weight to BTM power availability such that assigning computational operations to computing systems at a flexible datacenter is prioritized over traditional datacenters when BTM power is available at the flexible datacenter.”)
Regarding Claim 3, McNamara discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
McNamara further discloses:
wherein the parent system communicates with the child system by wired or wireless data communication. ([0117] “the remote master control system 262 may use wired (not illustrated) or wireless communication to communicate with datacenter control systems or other computing systems at the flexible datacenters 220 and the traditional datacenters 260.”)
Regarding Claim 4, McNamara discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
McNamara further discloses:
wherein the parent system is located remote from the source of the BTM energy. (fig. 2, Remote Master Control System 262 is depicted as ‘in front of the meter’ (206A), remote from the behind the meter energy sources (PG equipment 210).
Regarding Claim 5, McNamara discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
McNamara further discloses:
wherein the parent system is located at a source of BTM energy that may be the same or different as the source of BTM energy where the child system is located. ([0116] “Alternatively, although the remote master control system 262 is shown as a physically separate component arrangement for FIG. 2, the remote master control system 262 may be combined with another component in other embodiments. To illustrate an example, the remote master control system 262 may operate as part of a flexible datacenter … including … sharing power with a flexible data center, and/or being co-located with a flexible data center”)
regarding Claim 6, McNamara discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
McNamara further discloses:
comprising more than one parent-child systems. (plural child systems are depicted in e.g. figs, 2, 9, etc.; and see [0116] “Preferably, the remote master control system 262 is implemented across one or more servers in a fault-tolerant operating environment that ensures continuous uptime and connectivity by virtue of its distributed nature.”)
Regarding Claim 7, McNamara discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
McNamara further discloses:
wherein the parent system provides a queue of computational tasks. ([0125] “the remote master control system 300 may assign all incoming computational operation requests to the queue system 312 and subsequently assign the queued requests to computing systems based on an analysis of current market and power conditions.”; queue system 312 may be part of the remote master control system, see fig. 3)
Regarding Claim 9, McNamara discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
McNamara further discloses:
wherein the BTM energy is provided by stationary and/or moving energy sources. ([0151] “For instance, the flexible datacenter 500 may be rapidly deployed at a location near a source of generation station power (e.g., near a wind farm or solar farm).”)
Regarding Claim 10, McNamara discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
McNamara further discloses:
wherein the energy is provided by the group including homes, energy farms, vehicles, human power, solar energy, hydro energy, wind energy, and combinations thereof. ([0151] “For instance, the flexible datacenter 500 may be rapidly deployed at a location near a source of generation station power (e.g., near a wind farm or solar farm).”)
Regarding Claim 11, McNamara discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
McNamara further discloses:
wherein the computational task is secondary to a primary function of the child. ([0111] “The information used by the remote master control system 262 or another component may include data associated with the computational operations to be performed, such as deadlines, priorities (e.g., high vs. low priority tasks)” see also [0237] “Particularly, when revenue associated with a price of a cryptocurrency exceeds the cost associated with powering computing systems to mine the cryptocurrency, the remote master control system (or another computing system) may determine to use the computing systems to mine the cryptocurrency unless the computing systems can be better utilized supporting other computational operations with higher revenue streams.”)
Regarding Claim 13, McNamara discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 12,
McNamara further discloses:
comprising monitoring the BTM energy by the child system to determine BTM energy availability. (see fig., particularly 504 is depicted as part of the flexible data center (which is behind the meter, see fig. 2 and citations supra.) [0182] “The datacenter control system 504 may monitor BTM power conditions at the generation station and determine when a datacenter ramp-up condition is met. The BTM power availability may include one or more of excess local power generation, excess local power generation that the grid cannot accept, local power generation that is subject to economic curtailment, local power generation that is subject to reliability curtailment, local power generation that is subject to power factor correction, conditions where the cost for power is economically viable (e.g., low cost to obtain power), low priced power, situations where local power generation is prohibitively low, start up situations, transient situations, or testing situations where there is an economic advantage to using locally generated behind-the-meter power generation, specifically power available at little to no cost and with no associated transmission or distribution losses or costs.”)
Regarding Claim 15, McNamara discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 12,
McNamara further discloses:
wherein the computational task is performed to balance (see [0014] “[0014] To maintain stability of the grid, the grid operator strives to maintain a balance between the amount of power entering the grid from generation stations (e.g., 102a-d) and the amount of grid power used by loads (e.g., customers in the distribution segment 106). In order to maintain grid stability and manage congestion, grid operators may take steps to reduce the supply of power arriving from generation stations (e.g., 102a-d) when necessary (e.g., curtailment).”) an available BTM energy of the child. ([0182] “The BTM power availability may include one or more of excess local power generation, excess local power generation that the grid cannot accept, local power generation that is subject to economic curtailment, local power generation that is subject to reliability curtailment, local power generation that is subject to power factor correction”)
Regarding Claim 17, McNamara discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 16,
McNamara further discloses:
wherein the BTM energy is provided by the group including a home, a building, a vehicle, a human, and combinations thereof. ([0066] “renewable energy sources (e.g., wind, solar, hydroelectric, wave, water current, tidal), fossil fuel power generation sources (coal, natural gas), and other types of power producers (e.g., nuclear power) may be positioned in an arrangement that enables the intermittent supply of generated power behind-the-meter to one or more BTM loads. One of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that the generation station 202 may vary based on an application or design in accordance with one or more example embodiments.” Disclosing e.g. at least buildings.)
Regarding Claim 18, McNamara discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 16,
McNamara further discloses:
wherein the BTM energy is provided by the group including regenerative braking, solar energy, hydro energy, wind energy, kinetic energy, thermal transfer, and combinations thereof. ([0066] “renewable energy sources (e.g., wind, solar, hydroelectric, wave, water current, tidal), fossil fuel power generation sources (coal, natural gas), and other types of power producers (e.g., nuclear power) may be positioned in an arrangement that enables the intermittent supply of generated power behind-the-meter to one or more BTM loads. One of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that the generation station 202 may vary based on an application or design in accordance with one or more example embodiments.” nb. disclosing at least solar, hydro, wind, kinetic; see also [0016] “hydropower and thermal generation”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNamara, alternatively, McNamara further in view of Gandhi et al., US 9,672,122.
Regarding Claim 8, McNamara teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
McNamara does not expressly articulate:
Wherein the child system is a parent system to another child system.
However, McNamara teaches that the parent system may itself be distributed among multiple server, including co-located with the various child systems (the flexible data centers) see ([0116] “Alternatively, although the remote master control system 262 is shown as a physically separate component arrangement for FIG. 2, the remote master control system 262 may be combined with another component in other embodiments. To illustrate an example, the remote master control system 262 may operate as part of a flexible datacenter … including … sharing power with a flexible data center, and/or being co-located with a flexible data center”) and Rearrangement of parts which does not modify the overall operation of the system is recognized as the courts as being obvious. (See MPEP 2144.04.VI.C, citing in re Japiske, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)) so the claimed rearrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application because McNamara teaches both that there may be multiple distributed master controllers (“the parent system”), and that those controllers may be part of and/or co-located with, the flexible data centers (“the child systems”), and therefore an arrangement where a child system is also a parent system to another child system is obvious in view of McNamara and court precedent.
Should applicant feel that the above reasons are insufficient to render the claim obvious in view of the prior art, the claim is alternatively rejected further in view of Gandhi et al., US 9,672,122 which teaches that a distributed computation task may be separated into sub-tasks which may be distributed from a parent node to a child node, and then again, leading to multi-level delegation. (Gandhi, Col. 4, line 1-7 “ a “distributed task” is a specific type of computational task that can be processed in a parallel, distributed manner. A distributed task can be divided into subtasks, and the subtasks can be further distributed from a parent node to child nodes. The child nodes in turn may do this again, leading to multi-level delegation. Child nodes process the subtask and return the result to the parent node. These subtasks can be performed in parallel—for example, one compute node can be used per subtask, allowing for large numbers of compute nodes to be used in parallel to complete large, computationally expensive tasks.”)
Gandhi and McNamara are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of distributed computing.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of McNamara to include permitting child nodes to also delegate computational tasks to further child nodes, as suggested by Gandhi.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to parallelize large computationally expensive tasks, as suggested by Gandhi. (Col. 4 line 7 et seq. “child nodes process the subtask and return the result to the parent node. These subtasks can be performed in parallel—for example, one compute node can be used per subtask, allowing for large numbers of compute nodes to be used in parallel to complete large, computationally expensive tasks. In some distributed tasks, the parent node may use the subtask results of the work performed by the child nodes and produce the task result requested of the parent node.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pendharkar et al., US 9,292,350 - teaching recursive delegation of tasks between computing nodes such that each child node (e.g. Node B, see fig. 15) is the parent to at least one other child node (e.g. Node C, see fig. 15).
Belady et al., US Pg-Pub 2014/0365402 - particularly figs. 1-4 teaching both spatial and temporal shifting of computational tasks based on available energy at a plurality of data centers.
Nakigawa et al., US Pg-Pub 2003/0037150 – particularly fig. 3, describing assigning a QoS service level (e.g. priority) to various tasks, and curtailing secondary tasks in favor of primary tasks when energy is not available.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday through Friday.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119