DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim language in the following claims is not clearly understood:
As per claim 1, line 5-6, it is unclear whether “a particular data center asset” is referring to one of the “plurality of data center assets” in line 3 (i.e. consistent term should be used with “the” or “said” if they are the same)
As per claim 5, line 5-6, it is unclear whether “the certain percentages of power” is referring to the same “respective percentages of power” (i.e. consistent term should be used with “the” or “said” if they are the same)
Line 6, it is unclear whether “plurality of different types of electrical power sources” are referring to the “plurality of different types of electrical power sources” in line 1 and claim 4 (i.e. consistent term should be used with “the” or “said” if they are the same)
As per claim 6, line 2, it is unclear whether “the data center asset” is one of the “plurality of data center assets” (i.e. consistent term should be used with “the” or “said” if they are the same)
Line 3, it is unclear whether “one or more workloads” comprises “a particular workload” in claim 1 (i.e. consistent term should be used with “the” or “said” if they are the same)
As per claims 7 and 13, they have the same deficiencies as claim 1 above. Appropriate corrections are required.
As per claims 11 and 17, they have the same deficiencies as claim 5 above. Appropriate corrections are required.
As per claims 12 and 18, they have the same deficiencies as claim 6 above. Appropriate corrections are required.
As per claims 2-6, 8-12, 14-20, they depend from rejected claims and do not resolve the deficiencies thereof and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-6 are methods and thus fall within the statutory category of processes. Claims 7-12 are systems which fall within the statutory category of machines. Claims 13-20 are non-transitory computer readable storage media which fall within the statutory category of manufactures. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” YES.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 7 and 13: The limitation of “monitoring electrical power consumed by a particular data center asset”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “monitoring” in the context of this claim encompasses a person noticing and identify how the power is consumed by a data center asset (i.e. device), and making observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions regarding how the power is used by a data center asset.
Similarly, the limitation of “performing an electrical power consumption analysis operation, the electrical power consumption analysis operation ascertaining an amount of electrical power consumed by the particular data center asset when servicing the particular workload during the particular interval of time” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “performing electrical power consumption analysis operation” in the context of this claim encompasses simple calculations that may be performed within the mind such as making observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions regarding the amount of electrical power consumed by the data center asset (device), generated within the mind above, based upon some information received via monitoring power consumption of the data center assets.
Additional Elements are evaluated below.
Claims 2, 8, 14: Similarly, the limitation of “deriving an effective emission factor for each of a plurality of data centers, at least one of the plurality of data centers comprising the particular data center asset” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “deriving an effective emission factor” in the context of this claim encompasses simple calculations that may be performed within the mind such as making observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions regarding the amount of electrical power consumed by the data center asset (device), generated within the mind above, based upon some information received via monitoring power consumption of the data center assets.
Claims 3, 9, 15: Similarly, the limitation of “calculating an emission footprint for the particular workload” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “calculating an emission footprint” in the context of this claim encompasses simple calculations that may be performed within the mind such as making observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions regarding the amount of electrical power consumed by the data center asset (device), generated within the mind above, based upon some information received via monitoring power consumption of the data center assets.
Claims 4, 10, 16: Similarly, the limitation of “the effective emission factor for each of the plurality of data centers is derived based upon the plurality of different types of electrical power sources providing power to each of the plurality of data centers” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “the effective emission factor for each of the plurality of data centers is derived” in the context of this claim encompasses simple calculations that may be performed within the mind such as making observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions regarding the amount of electrical power consumed by the data center asset (device), generated within the mind above, based upon some information received via monitoring power consumption of the data center assets. Additional Elements are evaluated below.
Claims 5, 11, 17: Similarly, the limitation of “the effective emission factor is derived based upon the certain percentages of power provided by each of plurality of different types of electrical power sources” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “the effective emission factor is derived” in the context of this claim encompasses simple calculations that may be performed within the mind such as making observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions regarding the amount of electrical power consumed by the data center asset (device), generated within the mind above, based upon some information received via monitoring power consumption of the data center assets. Additional Elements are evaluated below.
Claims 6, 12, 18: Similarly, the limitation of “managing one or more workloads such that the workloads are serviced by the particular data center asset” and “performing the electrical power consumption analysis operation” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “managing one or more workloads” in the context of this claim encompasses making observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions regarding scheduling and facilitating the execution of the workloads. “Performing electrical power consumption analysis operation” in the context of this claim encompasses simple calculations that may be performed within the mind such as making observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions regarding the amount of electrical power consumed by the data center asset (device), generated within the mind above, based upon some information received via monitoring power consumption of the data center assets. Additional Elements are evaluated below.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 7, 13: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements –receiving data center asset data for a plurality of data center assets, the data center asset data comprising data associated with servicing a particular workload during a particular interval of time by a particular data center asset. “receiving data center asset data” is merely insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). Further, “data associated with servicing a particular workload during a particular interval of time by a particular data center asset” is merely the field of use/technological environment in which the judicial exception is being applied and does not meaningful limit the judicial exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In addition, Claim 7: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements “a processor, a data bus coupled to the processor”, “a data center asset client module”, “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium embodying computer program code” which are merely recitations of generic computing component and functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
In addition, Claim 13: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium embodying computer program code” which are merely recitations of generic computing component and functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Claims 4, 10, 16: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – a plurality of different types of electrical power sources provide power the each of the plurality of data centers. “A plurality of different types of electrical power sources provide power the each of the plurality of data centers” is merely the field of use/technological environment in which the judicial exception is being applied and does not meaningful limit the judicial exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claims 5, 11, 17: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – each of the plurality of different types of electrical power sources provide respective percentages of power for powering the each of the plurality of data centers. “Each of the plurality of different types of electrical power sources provide respective percentages of power for powering the each of the plurality of data centers” is merely the field of use/technological environment in which the judicial exception is being applied and does not meaningful limit the judicial exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claims 6, 12, 18: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – the data center asset comprises a workload management system; a data center monitoring and management console includes an electrical power consumption analysis system; and, the electrical power consumption analysis system receives information from the workload management system when performing the electrical power consumption analysis operation. “receives information from the workload management system when performing the electrical power consumption analysis operation” is merely insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity which does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). Further, “the data center asset comprises a workload management system; a data center monitoring and management console includes an electrical power consumption analysis system; and, the electrical power consumption analysis system” is merely the field of use/technological environment in which the judicial exception is being applied and does not meaningful limit the judicial exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 19: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – the computer executable instructions are deployable to a client system from a server system at a remote location. “the computer executable instructions are deployable to a client system from a server system at a remote location” is merely the field of use/technological environment in which the judicial exception is being applied and does not meaningful limit the judicial exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 20: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – the computer executable instructions are provided by a service provider to a user on an on-demand basis. “the computer executable instructions are provided by a service provider to a user on an on-demand basis” is merely the field of use/technological environment in which the judicial exception is being applied and does not meaningful limit the judicial exception, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 7, 13: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “receiving data center asset data for a plurality of data center assets, the data center asset data comprising data associated with servicing a particular workload during a particular interval of time by a particular data center asset” amount to no more than insignificant pre-solution data gathering (as evidenced by court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2103.05(g) and 2103.05(d)(II) and in accordance with the Office guidance in the memorandum addressing the decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) and field of use/technological environment without imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and thus cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “processor” and “media” amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 4, 10, 16: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a plurality of different types of electrical power sources provide power the each of the plurality of data centers” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and recitation of generic computing components without imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 5, 11, 17: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “each of the plurality of different types of electrical power sources provide respective percentages of power for powering the each of the plurality of data centers” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and recitation of generic computing components without imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 6, 12, 18: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “receives information from the workload management system when performing the electrical power consumption analysis operation” amount to no more than insignificant pre-solution data gathering (as evidenced by court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2103.05(g) and 2103.05(d)(II) and in accordance with the Office guidance in the memorandum addressing the decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) and field of use/technological environment without imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 19: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the computer executable instructions are deployable to a client system from a server system at a remote location” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and recitation of generic computing components without imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 20: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the computer executable instructions are provided by a service provider to a user on an on-demand basis” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and recitation of generic computing components without imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 2-3, 8-9, 14-15: They do not recite any additional elements.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1-20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul US Pub 2021/0042140 (hereafter Paul) in view of Hess et al. US Patent 11,747,782 (hereafter Hess).
As per claim 1, Paul teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a computer-implementable method for performing a data center management and monitoring operation, comprising: receiving data center asset data for a plurality of data center assets, the data center asset data comprising data associated with servicing a particular workload during a particular interval of time by a particular data center asset (para[0040-0044, 0071], data collector module collects resource usage and power consumption of the host servers (DC assets) in the data center during a particular interval of time);
monitoring electrical power consumed by a particular data center asset (para[0040-0044, 0051-0053, 0071], monitors and data collection of power consumption of applications running inside virtual machine of DC over a period of time).
Paul does not explicitly teach and, performing an electrical power consumption analysis operation, the electrical power consumption analysis operation ascertaining an amount of electrical power consumed by the particular data center asset when servicing the particular workload during the particular interval of time.
However, Hess teaches performing an electrical power consumption analysis operation, the electrical power consumption analysis operation ascertaining an amount of electrical power consumed by the particular data center asset when servicing the particular workload during the particular interval of time (col 4, line 20-35, col 5, line 5-46, col 6, line 19-49, col 8, line 1-63, FIG. 2B-2D, the system identify power consumptions of each of the devices in a datacenter for a period of time, where each device is assigned to a specific application and the applications are executed in the datacenter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate ‘s teaching to Hess’ invention in order to Paul’s invention in order to provide a method to use artificial intelligence applications in an environment with limited data, which provides power consumption predictions for selected applications within network arrangements featuring devices with non-homogenous or unknown specifications, where enables to identify current electricity consumption and associated carbon emission values for all components of the datacenter (col 1, line 39-67, col 2, line 1-37).
As per claim 2, Paul and Hess teach the method of claim 1, and Hess teaches further comprising: deriving an effective emission factor for each of a plurality of data centers, at least one of the plurality of data centers comprising the particular data center asset (col 6, line 5-18, col 8, line 27-63, FIG. 2D, efficiencies for the set of devices (data center assets) in the datacenter are determined based on information on power and cost of electricity production expressed in carbon emissions).
As per claim 3, Hess teaches further comprising: calculating an emission footprint for the particular workload (col 6, line 5-18, col 8, line 27-63, FIG. 2D, based on received metrics, the system calculates the carbon impact (CO2 emission) for each of the applications in the datacenter).
As per claim 4, Hess teaches wherein: a plurality of different types of electrical power sources provide power the each of the plurality of data centers; and, the effective emission factor for each of the plurality of data centers is derived based upon the plurality of different types of electrical power sources providing power to each of the plurality of data centers (col 4, line 20-35, col 7, line 11-39, col 16, line 19-45, metrics including power consumption, type of power source (solar, wind power, coal or nuclear power) powering the devices are received, and the carbon impact and efficiencies of the devices in the datacenter is determined based on the received metrics).
As per claim 5, Hess teaches wherein: each of the plurality of different types of electrical power sources provide respective percentages of power for powering the each of the plurality of data centers; and, the effective emission factor is derived based upon the certain percentages of power provided by each of plurality of different types of electrical power sources (col 7, line 11-39, col 16, line 19-45, the system determines an aggregate carbon impact ratio for the power source and adjust the carbon impact accordingly, based on the power source information (solar/wind/coal/nuclear power)).
As per claim 6, Hess teaches wherein: the data center asset comprises a workload management system, the workload management system managing one or more workloads such that the workloads are serviced by the particular data center asset (col 7, line 11-39, system uses automated data collectors to collect usage metrics (power consumption, application assignment, type of power productions) of application running on devices of the datacenter);
a data center monitoring and management console includes an electrical power consumption analysis system, the electrical power consumption analysis system performing the electrical power consumption analysis operation; and, the electrical power consumption analysis system receives information from the workload management system when performing the electrical power consumption analysis operation (col 8, line 1-63, col 14, line 1-67, col 15, line 1-5, 50-67, col 16, line 33, FIG. 4, based on the received metrics and retrieved device profiles determine carbon impact based on application specific power consumption using the AI model).
As per claim 7, it is a system claim of claim 1 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 8, it is a system claim of claim 2 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 9, it is a system claim of claim 3 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 10, it is a system claim of claim 4 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it is a system claim of claim 5 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it is a system claim of claim 6 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim of claim 1 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim of claim 2 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim of claim 3 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim of claim 4 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim of claim 5 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim of claim 6 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 19, Hess teaches wherein: the computer executable instructions are deployable to a client system from a server system at a remote location (col 10, line 16-52, FIG. 3, API layer (instructions) are implemented on user device, from a remote location via network).
As per claim 20, Hess teaches wherein: the computer executable instructions are provided by a service provider to a user on an on-demand basis (col 4, line 59-67, col 5, line 1-23, col 8, line 1-52-63, FIG. 1, carbon impact performance is presented to user via user interface).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMMY EUNHYE LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7773. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thur 9PM-4PM.
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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571)272-4169. 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.
/TAMMY E LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195