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 § 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.
the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 1, the claim recites an apparatus, therefore is a machine.
“ . . . evaluate … determine … “ These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
The elements of “interface circuitry … machine readable instructions … programmable circuitry . . . ” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
As discussed above, “interface circuitry … machine readable instructions … programmable circuitry . . . ” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. “cause the node to switch . . . ” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Garg. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 2, see rejection on claim 1. “The first energy source includes at least one of solar power, wind power, and hydroelectric power” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See MEIROSU. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 3, see rejection on claim 1. “wherein the operational parameters include at least one of capacity of the first energy source, capability of the first energy source, reliability of the first energy source, and cost of the first energy source “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Garg. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 4, see rejection on claim 1. “wherein determining the energy source is based on a trend of the operational parameters “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Sharma. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 5, see rejection on claim 1. “ adjusting a power level of the energy source to run the workload based on the comparison of the first renewability to the second renewability, the evaluation of the operational parameters, and a power requirement of the workload “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Garg. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 6, see rejection on claim 1. “switching to the energy source to run the workload is orchestrated to prevent a lapse in power supply at the node. “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Imamura. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 7, see rejection on claim 1. “causing a switch from the energy source running the workload to a different energy source based on the energy source running the workload running out of capacity. “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Imamura. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 8, see rejection on claim 1. “ wherein the operational parameters are measured through live telemetry “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Francis. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 9, see rejection on claim 1. “ wherein the edge node is a first edge node, and wherein the workload can be redistributed to a second edge node based on the operational parameters of the preferred energy source “ “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Garg. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 10, “ determine … “ These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
The elements of “. . . a node . . . ” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
As discussed above, “. . . a node . . . ”” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. “cause . . . to switch . . . ” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Garg. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 11, see rejection on claim 10. “wherein the first type of power generation includes at least one of solar power, hydroelectric power, and wind power” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Garg. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 12, “herein the instructions cause the machine to cause the node to switch from the first energy source to the second energy source further based on third data indicating a capacity of the first energy source” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Ichikawa. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 13, “cause the node to switch from the first energy source to the second energy source further based on third data indicating a trend of a capacity of the first energy source” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Ichikawa. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 14, “adjust a power level of the node based on the first data indicative of the renewability of the first energy source.” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Garg. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 15, “a determination that the first data indicates that the second energy source is more reliable than the second energy source, the reliability based on at least one of capacity, capability, or availability of the second energy source” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Ichikawa. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 16, “the node is a first node running a workload” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Jigalur. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 17, “wherein the workload can be redistributed to a second node based on an operational parameter of the second energy source” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Jigalur. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 18, “wherein the operational parameter is at least one of reliability, capacity, capability, and operational cost of the second energy source” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Jigalur. The claim is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claim 15, it is not clear what “the second energy source is more reliable than the second energy source …” should be construed as. How can an element is more reliable than the same element? In this rejection, it is assumed some energy source is more reliable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garg, Saurabh Kumar, et al. "Environment-conscious scheduling of HPC applications on distributed cloud-oriented data centers." Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 71.6 (2011): 732-749 (hereinafter Garg).
As per claim 10, Garg teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions to cause a machine to at least:
determine that first data indicative of a renewability of a first energy source indicates that the first energy source is more renewable than a second energy source (Garg, 4. Meta-scheduling policies—under BRI, first data indicative of a renewability of a first energy source indicates that the first energy source is more renewable than a second energy source can be that carbon emission is the minimum) , the first energy source associated with a first type of power generation and the second energy source associated with a second type of power generation (Garg, 4. Meta-scheduling policies—under BRI, first energy source associated with a first type of power generation . . . the second energy source associated with a second type of power generation can be two types of power source—one causing less carbon emission and another more carbon emission) ; and
cause a node to switch from the first energy source associated with the first type of power generation to the second energy source associated with the second type of power generation based on the first data indicative of the at least one of the renewability of the first energy source and second data indicative of a priority of a workload associated with the node (Garg, Meta-scheduling policies—under BRI, switching can be mapping, and priority of a workload can be deadline; a node can be an application);
As per claim 11, see rejection on claim 2.
As per claim 14, Garg teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 10 (see rejection on claim 10), wherein the instructions cause the machine to adjust a power level of the node based on the first data indicative of the renewability of the first energy source (Garg, 4. Meta-scheduling policies—under BRI, adjusting a power level of the energy source can be mapping to a power source 100%).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garg et al in view of MEIROSU et al (US 2019/0286484 ) (hereinafter MEIROSU).
As per claim 1, Garg teaches:
An apparatus to switch energy sources to supply a node comprising:
interface circuitry;
machine readable instructions; and programmable circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to:
evaluate operational parameters of a first energy source connected to the node and a second energy source connected to the node (Garg, 4. Meta-scheduling policies—under BRI, operational parameters of a first energy source connected to the node and a second energy source connected to the node can be carbon emissions);
determine an energy source to run a workload of the node based on a comparison of a first renewability of the first energy source to a second renewability of the second energy source, the evaluation of the operational parameters, and a requirement of the workload, wherein the energy source is the first energy source or the second energy source (Garg, 4. Meta-scheduling policies—under BRI, a requirement of the workload can be application deadline ); and
cause the node to switch to the energy source(Garg, 4. Meta-scheduling policies—under BRI, switching can be using application–data center pairs that results in the maximum profit,).
Garg does not expressly teach:
wherein the requirement is power requirement;
However, MEIROSU discloses:
wherein the requirement is power requirement (MEIROSU, [0043]);
Both MEIROSU and Garg pertain to the art of power management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use MEIROSU’s method to use a power requirement because considering power requirements in a data center provides major benefits including lower operational costs, optimized physical space, improved equipment lifespan, and seamless integration of green energy. Careful power planning ensures high uptime and efficiency
As per claim 2, Garg/MEIROSU teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), wherein the first energy source includes at least one of solar power, wind power, and hydroelectric power (MEIROSU, [0043]).
As per claim 3, Garg/MEIROSU teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (See rejection on claim 1), wherein the operational parameters include at least one of capacity of the first energy source, capability of the first energy source, reliability of the first energy source, and cost of the first energy source (Garg, 4. Meta-scheduling policies—under BRI, cost of the first energy source can be energy cost).
As per claim 5, Garg/MEIROSU teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), further including adjusting a power level of the energy source to run the workload based on the comparison of the first renewability to the second renewability, the evaluation of the operational parameters, and a power requirement of the workload (Garg, 4. Meta-scheduling policies—under BRI, adjusting a power level of the energy source can be mapping to a power source 100%).
As per claim 9, Garg/MEIROSU teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (see rejection on claim ), wherein the edge node is a first edge node, and wherein the workload can be redistributed to a second edge node based on the operational parameters of the preferred energy source (Garg, 4. Meta-scheduling policies--under BRI, a first edge node and 2nd edge node can be different data centers in application–data center pairs ).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garg/MEIROSU as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sharma et al (US 2023/0093059) (hereinafter Sharma).
As per claim 4, Garg/MEIROSU teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (See rejection on claim 1).
Garg/MEIROSU does not expressly teach:
wherein determining the energy source is based on a trend of the operational parameters.
However, Sharma discloses:
wherein determining the energy source is based on a trend of the operational parameters (Sharma, [0091]).
Both Sharma and Garg/MEIROSU pertain to the art of power management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sharma’s method to determine a power source based on a trend of the operational parameters because selecting a power source based on carbon emissions lowers greenhouse gases, improves public health, and stabilizes long-term energy costs.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garg/MEIROSU as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Imamura et al (US 2020/0065143) (hereinafter Imamura).
As per claim 6, Garg/MEIROSU teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Garg/MEIROSU does not expressly teach:
wherein switching to the energy source to run the workload is orchestrated to prevent a lapse in power supply at the node.
However, Imamura discloses:
wherein switching to the energy source to run the workload is orchestrated to prevent a lapse in power supply at the node (Imamura, [0032]).
Both Imamura and Garg/MEIROSU pertain to the art of power management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Imamura’s method to switch power supply in a failure because switching to a backup power source during a blackout provides continuous electricity, protects sensitive appliances, and ensures safety.
As per claim 7, Garg/MEIROSU teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Garg/MEIROSU does not expressly teach:
further including causing a switch from the energy source running the workload to a different energy source based on the energy source running the workload running out of capacity.
However, Imamura discloses:
further including causing a switch from the energy source running the workload to a different energy source based on the energy source running the workload running out of capacity (Imamura, [0034]—under BRI, running out of capacity can be power failure).
Both Imamura and Garg/MEIROSU pertain to the art of power management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Imamura’s method to switch power supply in a failure because switching to a backup power source during a blackout provides continuous electricity, protects sensitive appliances, and ensures safety.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garg/MEIROSU as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Francis et al (US 2023/0117047) (hereinafter Francis).
As per claim 8, Garg/MEIROSU teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Garg/MEIROSU does not expressly teach:
wherein the operational parameters are measured through live telemetry.
However, Francis discloses:
wherein the operational parameters are measured through live telemetry(Francis, [0053]).
Both Francis and Garg/MEIROSU pertain to the art of power management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Francis’s method to measure through live telemetry because measuring system parameters using live telemetry provides real-time visibility, faster problem response, and predictive maintenance.
Claims 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garg in view of Ichikawa et al (US 2004/0100562 ) (hereinafter Ichikawa).
As per claim 12, Garg teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 10 (See rejection on claim 10).
Garg does not expressly teach:
wherein the instructions cause the machine to cause the node to switch from the first energy source to the second energy source further based on third data indicating a capacity of the first energy source.
However, Ichikawa discloses:
wherein the instructions cause the machine to cause the node to switch from the first energy source to the second energy source further based on third data indicating a capacity of the first energy source (Ichikawa, [0113]).
Both Ichikawa and Garg pertain to the art of power management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ichikawa’s method to switch power source when capacity changes (power source failed) because switching to a backup power source during a blackout provides continuous electricity, protects sensitive appliances, and ensures safety.
As per claim 13, Garg teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 10 (see rejection ono claim 10).
Garg does not expressly teach:
wherein the instructions cause the machine to cause the node to switch from the first energy source to the second energy source further based on third data indicating a trend of a capacity of the first energy source.
However, Ichikawa discloses:
wherein the instructions cause the machine to cause the node to switch from the first energy source to the second energy source further based on third data indicating a trend of a capacity of the first energy source (Ichikawa, [0113]—under BRI, a trend of a capacity of the first energy source can be power failure).
Both Ichikawa and Garg pertain to the art of power management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ichikawa’s method to switch power source when power source failed because switching to a backup power source during a blackout provides continuous electricity, protects sensitive appliances, and ensures safety.
As per claim 15, Garg teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 10 (see rejection on claim 10).
Garg does not expressly teach:
further including a determination that the first data indicates that the second energy source is more reliable than the second energy source, the reliability based on at least one of capacity, capability, or availability of the second energy source.
However, Ichikawa discloses:
further including a determination that the first data indicates that the second energy source is more reliable than the second energy source, the reliability based on at least one of capacity, capability, or availability of the second energy source (Ichikawa, [0113]).
Both Ichikawa and Garg pertain to the art of power management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ichikawa’s method to determine one source is more available because determining and switching to a backup power source during a blackout provides continuous electricity, protects sensitive appliances, and ensures safety.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garg in view of Jigalur et al (US 2024/0012693) (hereinafter Garg) .
As per claim 16, Garg teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 10 (see rejection on claim 10).
Garg does not expressly teach:
the node is a first node running a workload.
However, Jigalur discloses:
the node is a first node running a workload (Jigalur, [0009]) .
Both Jigalur and Garg pertain to the art of power management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Jigalur’s method to run workloads on a node because executing workloads on virtual machines (VMs) provides enhanced cost savings, strong isolation, and high flexibility. It allows multiple operating systems to run efficiently on a single physical server while simplifying management and disaster recovery.
As per claim 17, Garg/Jigalur teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 16 (see rejection on claim 16), wherein the workload can be redistributed to a second node based on an operational parameter of the second energy source (Jigalur, [0004]) .
As per claim 18, Garg/Jigalur teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17 (see rejection on claim 17), wherein the operational parameter is at least one of reliability, capacity, capability, and operational cost of the second energy source (Jigular, [0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12105733 teaches a method of processing workloads in containers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5100. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/CHARLIE SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights