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 .
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 1-7 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 1 recites “programmable circuitry to execute machine-readable instructions to” perform a series of action. This language is indefinite because it may be interpreted as a statement of intended use for the circuitry rather than an explicit limitation. Recitation of an intended use may be non-limiting, making it unclear how much the subsequent functional language further limits the invention. The Examiner recommends amending the claims to more clearly indicate an explicit limitation rather than a possible intended use. For example, claim 1 could be amended to recite:
circuitry configured or programmed by the machine-readable instructions to perform claimed operations,
circuitry that executes or executing the machines-readable instruction to perform operations.
Similar reasoning may be applied to dependent claims 2-7, which recite programmable circuitry “to generate” and “to coordinate”. Claim 7 also recites a step to coordinate resources to “increase resource usage, increase energy efficiency, or increase performance per watt”. This language represents a desired result or outcome without explicit recitation of how the outcome is necessitated by the steps, and is therefore indefinite.
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. Claim 1 recites a mental process comprising:
determine a first service level objective based on a service level agreement and resource data;
modify the first service level objective to generate a second service level objective based on the first service level objective and an ambient temperature prediction;
determine a resource budget based on a resource usage prediction, the resource budget to identify available resources at a given time; and
cause an allocation of cooling resources and power resources for a compute component based on the second service level objective and the resource budget.
The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of determining/modifying/generating includes judgments that may be performed in the human mind. The BRI of “causing an allocation” includes abstract designation of things or values (i.e., the resources) to categories, which may also be performed in the human mind. Additionally, the operations and their inputs (e.g., service level agreement, resource data, temperature and resource usage predictions, etc.) are recited at such a high level of generality that there is nothing to preclude the operations from practically being performed in the human mind [MPEP 2164.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “A Claim With Limitation(s) That Cannot Practically be Performed in the Human Mind Does Not Recite a Mental Process”].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited in claim 1 represent generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements amount to mere use of a general purpose computer to perform the mental process, and therefore fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously indicated, the additional elements amount to mere use of a general purpose computer to perform the mental process. Such usage of a general purpose computer cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims also recite steps that may be performed in the human mind, and are also recited at a high level of generality such that they fail to preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Claims 2-7 recite steps to generate service level objectives, resource usage predictions, temperature predictions, resource budgets, and to perform/coordinate allocations, all which may be performed in the human mind. Claims 2-7 also recite the data manipulated by the steps at a high level of generality such that there is nothing to preclude the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. Additionally, while claim 7 recites additional elements that may be interpreted as not being performed in the human mind (increasing resource usage, efficiency, performance per watt) they are recited in such a way as to indicate a desired result or outcome of the process, and therefore may be interpreted as non-limiting.
Similar reasoning may be applied to claims 8-20, which are rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lerer et al., U.S. Patent No. 12,468,579, discloses a system that uses a predictive model that employs service level agreement compliance data and collected real-time data to apply power capping to a computer system [Fig. 2].
Meganathan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0376093, discloses a system that provides thermal and power consumption data to a machine learning model to predictively control cooling for a data processing system [Fig. 5].
Lee et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0146750, discloses a system that provides temperature and server state information to a machine learning model that performs temperature prediction and subsequent cooling control [Fig. 2].
Huai et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0147125, discloses a system controls a computer fan speed based predictive algorithm [para. 0064].
Lattrel et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0405735, discloses a system that uses predictive modeling to determine how long the system can operate at a given performance level before reaching a target temperature threshold, and subsequent performance adjustment steps upon reaching the threshold [para. 0030, Fig. 4].
Gross et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0259347, discloses a system that compares a predicted temperature to a target temperature and adjusts a cooling fan in response to the comparison [para. 0029, 0030].
The following references are relevant to the subject matter of the present application, and are also co-assigned with, and/or share a common inventor with the present application:
Guim Bernat et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2023/0273597, 2023/0259185, and 2023/0209772,
Misra et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0259102.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI H BAE whose telephone number is (571)272-7181. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday to Friday and every other Monday, 9 am to 6 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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/JI H BAE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Phone: 571-272-7181
Fax: 571-273-7181
ji.bae@uspto.gov