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 . Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following:
The specification lacks the section “Field of the Invention”.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A COMPACT DISC (See 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5) and MPEP 608.05. Computer program listings (37 CFR 1.96(c)), “Sequence Listings” (37 CFR 1.821(c)), and tables having more than 50 pages of text are permitted to be submitted on compact discs.) or
REFERENCE TO A “MICROFICHE APPENDIX” (See MPEP § 608.05(a). “Microfiche Appendices” were accepted by the Office until March 1, 2001.)
(e) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 line 2 uses the acronym or variable “kW”, the first use of an acronym or variable in a claim should be defined to avoid any possible indefiniteness issues.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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 7 and 18 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the cold aisle temperature" in line(s) 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a plurality of "cold aisle temperatures" anteceding this limitation. The recitation of “the cold aisle temperature” is unclear because it is uncertain which of the plurality was intended.
As to claim 18, the same deficiency applies.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1, Step 1: a method (process = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes)
Independent claim 1 Step 2A, Prong One: claim recites:
for estimating cooling capacity… determining at least one of an effective cooling capacity or maximum deployable cooling based on the data center specific metrics;
determining, with the one or more processors, an updated performance rating for the modular cooling units based on at least one of the determined effective cooling capacity or maximum deployable cooling
Claim 1 is substantially drawn to mental concepts: observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components. Information and/or data also fall within the realm of abstract ideas because information and data are intangible. See Electric Power Group1 (Electric Power hereinafter): “Information… is an intangible”.
As to the limitations "for estimating cooling capacity", Examiner notes that they are not elaborated but merely repeated in the Specification. Estimating is a mental concept. Estimating is an activity that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. As to the limitations "determining at least one of an effective cooling capacity or maximum deployable cooling based on the data center specific metrics", mathematical calculations are activities that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. See for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added):
“[0069]… effective cooling capacity and maximum deployable cooling may be determined… a modular cooling unit re-rate calculator may be used to calculate individual modular cooling unit cooling capacity distribution based on local weather, equipment and operating conditions. Effective cooling capacity may be computed by adjusting a cooling load relative to a central utilities building capacity"
As to the limitations "determining, with the one or more processors, an updated performance rating for the modular cooling units based on at least one of the determined effective cooling capacity or maximum deployable cooling", Examiner notes that they are not elaborated but merely repeated in the Specification. Determinations are mental in nature. As drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations can be characterized as entailing a user analyzing/deciding/determining (judgments, opinions), that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes, then it falls within the "(c) Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (c) Mental processes).
Independent claim 1 Step 2A, Prong Two: As to the limitations “in a data center including a cooling system comprising one or more modular cooling units“, they amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements one or more processors, which provide conventional computer implementation.
As to the limitations "receiving, at one or more processors, data center specific metrics based on a geographical location of the data center and parameters of the one or more modular cooling units, the parameters including a default performance rating of each modular cooling unit”, they describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. Data gathering, including when limited to particular content does not change its character as information, is also within the realm of abstract ideas. See Electric Power.
As to the limitations "generating, with the one or more processors, a data center cooling model based on the updated performance ratings", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 1 Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations amounting to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception remain as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the claim recites the additional elements one or more processors. They are recited at a high level of generality and as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of a computer to implement the abstract idea of a mental algorithm has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. The implementation on a computing system is described in the specification (underline emphasis added):
"[0057] The computing unit 1020 includes one or more processors 1070. The processors 1070 can be any conventional processors, such as commercially available CPUs"
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the claim recites data gathering, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). As to these limitations, they are so broad that little is known about how they are performed. They are not elaborated but merely repeated in the Specification.
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Independent claim 12 recites substantially the same elements as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons above. Further, the additional element computer readable storage medium is rejected below:
Independent claim 12 Step 2A Prong two and 2B: As to the further additional elements memory in communication with one or more processors, they are interpreted as drawn to a generic computer. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Dependent claims Step 2A, Prong One: Dependent claims limitations further the mental concepts of their independent claims. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above).
As to the limitations "3/14… wherein the fan coil performance is determined based on an amount of water required to move one unit of kW thermal power", "9/20… determining a maximum deployable cooling power that may be employed without violating the updated performance ratings for the modular cooling units", Examiner notes that they are not elaborated but merely repeated in the Specification. Determinations are mental in nature. As drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations can be characterized as entailing a user analyzing/deciding/determining (judgments, opinions), that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes, then it falls within the "(c) Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (c) Mental processes).
Dependent claims, Step 2A Prong two: As to the limitations “2/13… wherein the data center specific metrics include fan coil performance", "4/15… wherein the data center specific metrics include historical weather conditions", "6/17… wherein the data center specific metrics include cold aisle temperatures", "8/19… wherein the data center specific metrics include central utilities building capacity, wherein the central utilities building provides mechanical and electrical systems to the data center, and available redundant capacity, the available redundant capacity corresponding to a number of additional units that are not needed to operate the cooling system", they further the data gathering of their independent claims.
As to the limitations "11… receiving, at the one or more processors via telemetry from machines in the data center, operational information for the machines”, these limitations describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. (See Independent claim, Step 2A Prong two above).
As to the limitations “5/16… wherein the data center comprises a process cooling water loop including the one or more modular cooling units, wherein the process cooling water loop intakes water at a first temperature and circulates the water through the data center", "6/17… wherein the data center comprises a plurality of racks lined up in alternating rows with cold air intakes facing each other in cold aisles and hot air exhausts facing each other in hot aisles", "7/18… wherein the data center comprises a process cooling water loop including the one or more modular cooling units, wherein the process cooling water loop intakes water at a first temperature and circulates the water through the data center, wherein the first temperature to the process cooling water loop may be adjusted to simulate a change in the cold aisle temperature“, they amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception.
As to the limitations "10… generating metadata related to cooling capacity of the data centers based on the data center specific metrics", "11… updating in real time, with the one or more processors, the data center cooling model based on the operational information", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Dependent claims, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, claims recite data gathering, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations amounting to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception remain as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, pages, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matthew R. Archibald, (Archibald hereinafter), U.S. Patent 7979250, taken in view of James W. VanGilder, VanGilder hereinafter), U.S. Patent 7,991,592, and further in view of Nevena Lazic et al., (Lazic hereinafter), "Data center cooling using model-predictive control",
As to claim 1, Archibald discloses a method… in a data center including a cooling system comprising one or more modular cooling units (see "M off the shelf computer room air-conditioning (CRAC) units are chosen for use within the data center" in col. 8, lines 6-21), the method comprising: receiving, at one or more processors (see "invention may also be implemented in a system. A system may comprise a computer that includes a processor and a memory device" in col. 15, lines 13-16), data center specific metrics based on a geographical location of the data center and parameters of the one or more modular cooling units, the parameters including a default performance rating of each modular cooling unit (see "a list is obtained of N electronics racks R1 . . . RN of electronic equipment scheduled to be installed in the data center 500. For this list of electronics racks, the rated rack powers P1 . . . PN, and rated rack airflows therethrough F1 . . . FN are obtained. A detailed layout L of the raised floor data center room is next obtained, wherein location of existing equipment (such as PDUs) and room structural elements (such as pillars, doors, etc.) is noted" in col. 7, lines 1-8); determining at least one of an effective cooling (see "monitoring temperature of the thermally simulated data center at multiple locations, and checking to determine whether there is a cooling problem or an energy inefficiency problem within the thermally simulated data center" in col. 2, lines 22-25); determining, with the one or more processors, an updated performance rating for the modular cooling units based on at least one of the determined effective cooling (see 'M off the shelf computer room air-conditioning (CRAC) units are chosen for use within the data center, wherein the CRAC units have respective airflow capabilities A1 . . . AM and heat removal capabilities C1 . . . CM 540. Before installing the thermal simulators, the rated rack powers of the N electronics racks to be installed are summed (Ptotal), the heat removal rates (kW) of the CRAC units (either measured or rated) are summed (Ctotal), the airflow rates (m3/s) of the electronics racks to be installed are summed (Ftotal), and the airflow rates (m3/s) of the CRAC units (either measured or rated) are summed (Atotal) 542. Processing then determines whether Ptotal<Ctotal 544, and if "yes", whether Ftotal<Atotal 546. If either Ptotal is not less than Ctotal or Ftotal is not less than Atotal, then one or more CRAC units are added to the data center layout 548 until Ctotal/Ptotal>1, and Atotal/Ftotal>1' in col. 8, lines 6-21); and generating, with the one or more processors, a data center cooling model based on the updated performance ratings (see "model" in "simulator", "adjusting at least one of power consumption or airflow settings for the N rack thermal simulators so that each rack thermal simulator has at least one of a power consumption or airflow therethrough which corresponds to a power rating or an airflow rating of a respective electronics rack of the N electronics racks; placing the N rack thermal simulators in the data center using a data center layout to establish a thermally simulated data center" in col. 2, lines 14-21).
While Archibald discloses effective cooling, Archibald fails to disclose for estimating cooling capacity…
VanGilder discloses for estimating cooling capacity… (see "cooler return temperatures may be computed from equation (23)… return temperature can be used… to determine the capacity of coolers used in the clusters, which depends strongly on this quantity. The ability to estimate cooler capacity accurately, in turn, allows an accurate prediction of the number of coolers required to satisfy design goals which may include providing cooling redundancy" in col. 29, lines 16-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use VanGilder with Archibald, because VanGilder discloses "analyzing and optimizing the cooling performance of a data center using the capture index metric for both hot aisles and cold aisles" (see col. 6, lines 25-27), and as a result, VanGilder reports that "the capture index metric is used within a data center management application to evaluate the cooling performance of a data center and to optimize the cooling performance. The evaluation and optimization may be done as part of an initial design of a data center, as part of a retrofit of a data center, or periodically in an existing data center. In addition… the return temperature of in-row coolers may be determined as part of the analysis and used to optimize the cooling performance of a data center and ensure that coolers are operated efficiently" (see col. 8, lines 16-15).
While Archibald discloses "model" in "simulator", Archibald and VanGilder fail to expressly disclose
Lazic expressly discloses See page 4, 2nd paragraph:
PNG
media_image1.png
229
777
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Archibald, VanGilder, and Lazic are analogous art because they are related to data center modeling.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Lazic with Archibald and VanGilder, because Lazic "presented an application of model-based reinforcement learning to the task of regulating data center cooling" (see page 8, next to last paragraph), and as a result, Lazic reports "[m]odel predictive control We consider the use of MPC to remove some of the inefficiencies associated with the existing PID control system. We: (i) model the effect of each AHU on state variables in a large neighborhood (up to 5 server rows) rather than on just the closest sensors; (ii) control CAT directly rather using LAT as a proxy; and (iii) jointly optimize all controls instead of using independent local controllers. We identify a model of DC cooling dynamics using only a few hours of exploration and minimal prior knowledge. We then control using this learned model, removing the need for manual tuning. As we show, these changes allow us to operate at less conservative setpoints and improve the cooling operational efficiency" (see page 4, 1st paragraph).
As to claim 2, Lazic discloses wherein the data center specific metrics include fan coil performance (see "To compare costs, we restrict data to AHUs and times corresponding to the peaks of histograms in Figure 5 left (about 74% of the data for both controllers). We stratify this data as above and compare the total cost in each stratum in Table 3 – Table 3: Average total cost (% data) of each controller, restricted to time points and fancoils" in page 8, 2nd paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Lazic with Archibald and VanGilder, (see supra).
As to claim 3, Lazic discloses wherein the fan coil performance is determined based on an amount of water required to move one unit of kW thermal power (see "Variables relevant to this problem are continuous-valued… Controls are the variables we can manipulate. These are fan speed (controlling air flow) and valve opening (which regulates amount of water used) for each AHU" in page 3, 2nd paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Lazic with Archibald and VanGilder, (see supra).
As to claim 4, Lazic discloses wherein the data center specific metrics include historical weather conditions (see "the main disturbances are the EWT (temperature of entering cold water) and server power usage (a proxy for generated heat). These variables also reflect other factors (e.g., weather" in page 6, 5 Experiments, 1st paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Lazic with Archibald and VanGilder, (see supra).
As to claim 5, Lazic discloses wherein the data center comprises a process cooling water loop including the one or more modular cooling units, wherein the process cooling water loop intakes water at a first temperature and circulates the water through the data center (see "Figure 1: Data center cooling loop. AHUs on the server floor regulate the air temperature through air-water heat exchange. Warmed water is cooled in the chiller and evaporative cooling towers" in page 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Lazic with Archibald and VanGilder, (see supra).
As to claim 6, Lazic discloses wherein the data center comprises a plurality of racks lined up in alternating rows with cold air intakes facing each other in cold aisles and hot air exhausts facing each other in hot aisles (see "Figure 1: Data center cooling loop. AHUs on the server floor regulate the air temperature through air-water heat exchange", "hot air (EAT)", "cold air (LAT)" in page 3), and wherein the data center specific metrics include cold aisle temperatures (see "Variables relevant to this problem are continuous-valued… States collect the process variables we wish to predict and regulate. These include… cold-aisle temperature (CAT), measured using multiple sensors along the server racks" in page 3, 2nd paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Lazic with Archibald and VanGilder, (see supra).
As to claim 7, Lazic discloses wherein the data center comprises a process cooling water loop including the one or more modular cooling units, wherein the process cooling water loop intakes water at a first temperature and circulates the water through the data center (see "Figure 1: Data center cooling loop. AHUs on the server floor regulate the air temperature through air-water heat exchange. Warmed water is cooled in the chiller and evaporative cooling towers" in page 3), wherein the first temperature to the process cooling water loop may be adjusted to simulate a change in the cold aisle temperature (see "Variables relevant to this problem are continuous-valued… States collect the process variables we wish to predict and regulate. These include…cold-aisle temperature (CAT), measured using multiple sensors along the server racks… we model and regulate the median values of local groups of CAT and DP sensors" in page 3, 2nd paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Lazic with Archibald and VanGilder, (see supra).
As to claim 8, VanGilder discloses wherein the data center specific metrics include central utilities building capacity, wherein the central utilities building provides mechanical and electrical systems to the data center, and available redundant capacity, the available redundant capacity corresponding to a number of additional units that are not needed to operate the cooling system (see "cooler return temperatures may be computed from equation (23)… return temperature can be used… to determine the capacity of coolers used in the clusters, which depends strongly on this quantity. The ability to estimate cooler capacity accurately, in turn, allows an accurate prediction of the number of coolers required to satisfy design goals which may include providing cooling redundancy" in col. 29, lines 16-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use VanGilder with Archibald, (see supra).
As to claim 9, Lazic discloses determining a maximum deployable cooling power (see "Let [ucmin,ucmax] be the range of control variable c, and let ∆c be the maximum allowed absolute change in c between consecutive time steps. Our exploration strategy is a simple, range-limited uniform random walk in each control variable:uci[t+1] = max(ucmin, min(ucmax, uci[t] + vci)), vci ~ Uniform(–∆c;∆c). (2)This strategy ensures sufficient frequency content for system identification and respects safety and hardware constraints" in page 5, 4th paragraph; "cost of control (i.e., cost of power that may be employed without violating the updated performance ratings for the modular cooling units (see "Our focus is on floor-level cooling, where the primary goal is to regulate cold-aisle temperatures and differential air pressures. Controlling the cold-aisle temperatures ensures that the machines operate at optimal efficiency and prevents equipment damage. Maintaining negative differential air pressure between adjacent hot and cold aisles ensures that cool air flows over servers and improves power efficiency by minimizing the need for the servers to use their own fans. Our goal is to operate close to (but not exceeding) upper bounds on temperature and pressure at minimal AHU power and water usage" in page 3, 2nd paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Lazic with Archibald and VanGilder, (see supra).
As to claim 10, VanGilder discloses generating metadata related to cooling capacity of the data centers based on the data center specific metrics (see "cooler return temperatures may be computed from equation (23)… return temperature can be used… to determine the capacity of coolers used in the clusters, which depends strongly on this quantity. The ability to estimate cooler capacity accurately, in turn, allows an accurate prediction of the number of coolers required to satisfy design goals which may include providing cooling redundancy" in col. 29, lines 16-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use VanGilder with Archibald, (see supra).
As to claim 11, Lazic discloses receiving, at the one or more processors via telemetry from machines in the data center, operational information for the machines; and updating in real time, with the one or more processors, the data center cooling model based on the operational information (see "Variables relevant to this problem are continuous-valued… States collect the process variables we wish to predict and regulate. These include differential air pressure (DP) and cold-aisle temperature (CAT), measured using multiple sensors along the server racks… we model and regulate the median values of local groups of CAT and DP sensors" in page 3, 2nd paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Lazic with Archibald and VanGilder, (see supra).
As to claims 12-20, these claims a system for performing the method of claims 1-11. Archibald discloses "invention may also be implemented in a system. A system may comprise a computer that includes a processor and a memory device" (see col. 15, lines 13-16) for performing a method that teaches claims 1-11. Therefore, claims 12-20 are rejected for the same reasons given above.
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, pages, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN CARLOS OCHOA whose telephone number is (571)272-2625. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays 9:30AM - 8:00 PM.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/JUAN C OCHOA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 Fed. Cir. 2016
