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 .
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 12/04/2025 claims 1-20 are pending. Independent claims 1, 8, and 14 have been amended by including new limitations not previously presented. Claims 3, 10 and 16 have been amended to correct a claim objection.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 14 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the previously presented prior art references in combination with a newly found prior art reference.
The remaining arguments are moot as the applicant’s arguments for the remaining claims were based on dependency of the independent claims.
The claim objections are withdrawn due to the amendments made by the applicant.
The 35 USC § 101 rejections are withdrawn due to the amendments made by the applicant.
This Office Action is made Final due to the amendments.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenne et al. (USPGPN 20200133361), in view of Dunlap et al. (USPGPN 20170129359), and further in view of Suryanarayana et al. (USPGPN 20210382539).
First, the examiner notes the claim limitations “in response to determining that the system power consumption is equivalent to an idle power limit, minimizing the battery charge rate applied to the battery backup unit” are supported by the applicant in Fig. 5 and ¶ [47] of the disclosure in “the power manager may set the battery charger to the minimum charge rate when the system utilization, also referred to as system power consumption, is at a significantly low state such as when the information handling system is on idle power. This is performed to prevent inflating the idle power.”
For examination purposes the limitation “idle power limit” will be interpreted as a power level required for a system to remain operational without performing additional work or producing extra output.
Second, the examiner notes the claim limitations “in response to determining that the system power consumption is between the idle power limit and the system power limit, maximizing the battery charge rate applied to the backup battery unit” are supported by the applicant in Fig. 5 and ¶ [49] of the disclosure in “if the system power is greater than the idle power and node lower boundary and the PSUs are not providing maximum power to the system, then the power manager may set the battery charge rate to the maximum charge rate. This prevents the idle power from increasing when charging the battery backup unit.”
For examination purposes the limitations “system power consumption is between the idle power limit and the system power limit” will be interpreted as the power level at which a system generates more power than required for its own operation, allowing excess to be used by other systems or stored.
With respect to independent claims 1, 8 and 14, Jenne teaches an information handling system and method (Fig. 1; information handling system 100).
Jenne teaches a processor (Fig. 1; processor 102).
Jenne teaches a memory storing instructions that when executed cause the processor to perform operations (Fig. 1; memory 120 may be non-volatile and includes programs executable by the processor 102, see ¶ [21, 68]).
Jenne teaches determining a battery charge rate to be applied to a battery backup unit, wherein the battery charge rate is varied based on an actual system power consumption and a system power limit (Fig. 5; ¶[58]; the charge rate of a power assist unit 210 (i.e., backup battery) is determined and varied based upon an imposed power cap (i.e., a system power limit) and the power consumption of the information handling system).
Jenne teaches charging the battery backup unit according to the battery charge rate (¶[58]; the power supply unit 202 charges the power assist unit 210 according to the charge rate).
However, Jenne fails to explicitly teach in response to determining that the actual system power consumption is equivalent to an idle power limit, minimizing the battery charge rate; in response to determining that the actual system power consumption is increasing, increasing the battery charge rate; in response to determining that the actual system power consumption is between the idle power limit and the system power limit, maximizing the battery charge rate; and in response to determining that the actual system power consumption is decreasing, decreasing the battery charge rate.
Dunlap teaches in response to determining that the actual system power consumption is equivalent to an idle power limit, minimizing the battery charge rate (¶ [30-31]; when the engine remains running but is not performing significant additional work, the system reduces or suspends battery charging to avoid unnecessary fuel consumption and inefficiency).
Dunlap teaches in response to determining that the actual system power consumption is between the idle power limit and the system power limit, maximizing the battery charge rate (¶ [30-31]; the system generates more power than required for vehicle propulsion and additional loads, allowing excess engine output to be used for maximizing the charging of the traction battery when operating efficiently).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Dunlap’s opportunistic charging method to Jenne’s information handling system, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
However, Jenne fails to explicitly teach in response to determining that the actual system power consumption is increasing, increasing the battery charge rate; and in response to determining that the actual system power consumption is decreasing, decreasing the battery charge rate.
Suryanarayana teaches, considering MPEP 2144.04 VI. A. Reversal of Parts, in response to determining that the actual system power consumption is increasing, increasing the operation, and in response to determining that the actual system power consumption is decreasing, decreasing the operation (abstract; ¶[52]; the system considers the actual system power consumption to either increase or decrease an operation. Considering MPEP 2144.04 VI. A. Reversal of Parts, Suryanarayana’s operation would increase with an increase in actual system power consumption or the operation would decrease with a decrease in actual system power consumption).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to have adapted Suryanarayana’s operations based on actual system power consumption to Jenne’s charging rate determination for the power assist unit in order to have an information handling system which is capable of increasing or decreasing the charging rate of the power assist unit based on the actual system power consumption. The advantage to this being that accurately knowing the actual system power consumption allows for efficiently and quickly using system resources to execute operations (see ¶[02] of Suryanarayana).
MPEP 2144.04 VI. A. Reversal of Parts
In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.).
With respect to dependent claims 2, 9 and 15, Jenne teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1, 8 and 14, respectively. Further, Jenne teaches modifying the battery charge rate in response to a thermal system event (¶ [58]; the power assist unit 210 is directed to lower the charge rate in response to a datacenter thermal condition).
With respect to dependent claims 3, 10 and 16, Jenne teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1, 8 and 14, respectively. Third, the examiner notes the claim limitation “a minimum energy vaulting threshold” is disclosed by the applicant in ¶ [57] as “it is generally desired that the BBU reaches a charge level that can support a single persistent memory save or vaulting event as soon as possible to allow the system to function in the non-volatile storage mode, but once that threshold is reached, further charging can happen at a slower rate. The minimum energy vaulting threshold (MEVT) may be the minimum charge level to support the single vaulting event and may be calculated based on the system inventory that includes the CPU, memory, and storage configurations.”
For examination purposes, the “minimum energy vaulting threshold” will be interpreted as the lowest safe power level the system needs to perform critical functions such as saving memory.
Further, Jenne teaches modifying the battery charge rate in response to the battery backup unit reaching a minimum energy vaulting threshold (Fig. 5; ¶ [63]; the power assist unit 210 charge rate is modified when reaching a static peak limit threshold to ensure an adequate power level for ADR and NVDIMM memory saving modes).
With respect to dependent claims 5, 12 and 18, Jenne teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1, 8 and 14, respectively. However, Jenne fails to explicitly teach wherein the battery charge rate is applied to a plurality of battery backup units.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the battery charge rate to a plurality of battery backup units, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) Duplication of Parts.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
With respect to dependent claims 7, 13 and 20, Jenne teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1, 8 and 14, respectively. However, Jenne fails to explicitly teach wherein a scaling factor is used as a buffer in calculating a maximum battery charge rate.
Dunlap teaches wherein a scaling factor is used as a buffer in calculating a maximum battery charge rate (¶ [15]; station factors are used as a buffer when calculating the maximum charge rate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Dunlap’s opportunistic charging method to Jenne’s information handling system, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenne in view of Dunlap and Suryanarayana, and further in view of Ou Yang et al. (USPGPN 20190033938).
With respect to dependent claims 4, 11 and 17, Jenne teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1, 8 and 14, respectively. Jenne teaches a power supply unit of a plurality of power supply units (Fig. 3; power supply units 310/320).
However, Jenne fails to explicitly teach in response to determining that a power supply unit goes offline, disabling charging the battery backup unit while the power supply unit is offline.
Ou Yang teaches in response to determining that a power supply unit goes offline, disabling charging the battery backup unit while the power supply unit is offline (¶ [07-08]; battery charging is inherently designed to stop when the PSU faults and battery charging resumes when an AC OK signal is received indicating the PSU is normal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Ou Yang’s power management method to Jenne’s information handling system, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenne in view of Dunlap and Suryanarayana, and further in view of Liu et al. (USPGPN 20210336466).
With respect to dependent claims 6 and 19, Jenne teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 14, respectively. However, Jenne fails to explicitly teach updating a charge requirement register of the battery backup unit with the battery charge rate.
Liu teaches updating a charge requirement register of the battery backup unit with the battery charge rate (¶ [27, 32]; register 224 stores battery charge rate parameters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Liu’s charge rate register method to Jenne’s information handling system, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following were identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), however, were not relied upon by the examiner for citation purposes:
US 20210216122 A1
US 20210135460 A1
US 10270071 B2
US 10158247 B2
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm ET.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights