DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to the Applicant’s Communication received on 02/03/2024 for application number 18/431,933. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, IDS, and Claims.
Claims 3-6, 8, and 9 are objected to.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a predictor constructing module” and “a resilient detection module” in claim 7
“a power predictor” in claim 8
“an error-processing module” in claims 8 and 9
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitations “a predictor constructing module”, “a resilient detection module”, “a power predictor”, and “an error-processing module” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim limitations “a predictor constructing module” and “a resilient detection module” in claim 7, “a power predictor” in claim 8, as well as “an error-processing module” in claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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 limitations “a predictor constructing module” and “a resilient detection module” in claim 7, “a power predictor” in claim 8, as well as “an error-processing module” in claims 8 and 9 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Upon reviewing the disclosure and drawings (Figs. 2 and 4-6 and associated description including paragraphs 0025-0026, and 0040-0052). Examiner concludes that the cited limitations “predictor constructing module”, “resilient detection module”, “power predictor”, “error-processing module” above does indeed disclose or are described in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art will understand what “algorithm” the inventor has identified to perform the recited functions.
Upon reviewing the disclosure and drawings (Figs. 1-6) Examiner concludes that the cited limitations “predictor constructing module”, “resilient detection module”, “power predictor”, and “error-processing module” are NOT described in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art will understand what “structure” or “material” the inventor has identified to perform the recited functions. There are no mention in the disclosure of the definition of the term “module”. Fig. 6 only shows “predictor constructing module”, “resilient detection module”, “power predictor”, and “error processing module” as "black boxes". Therefore, the disclosure as mentioned above and the “black box” drawing results in no limits being imposed by the claimed structure or material, and, as a result, covers all ways of performing a function – known and unknown. In conclusion, the disclosure does not unambiguously link the "modules" to any “structure” or “material”.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-6 are directed to a method. Claim 7-9 are directed to a device. Therefore, all claim limitations directed to one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 1
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites:
“constructing a power level predictor;” Constructing a power level predictor is an action that can be performed mentally with the aid of pen and paper, and is therefore a mental process.
“inputting input parameters comprising an initial ambient power, a power average value and a power variance value of n power cycles before a current power cycle into the power level predictor to obtain a predictor output of the power level predictor, wherein n ≥ 2;” This claim limitation merely uses textual replacements for particular equations, and is therefore a mathematical concept.
“determining a checkpoint interval of the current power cycle, based on the predicted power level of the future power cycle and a characteristic of an input power source;” Determining a checkpoint interval is an action that can be performed mentally with the aid of pen and paper, and is therefore a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are as follows:
“A setting method for resilient checkpointing based on machine learning;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“the predictor output is a predicted power level of a future power cycle;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are as follows:
“A setting method for resilient checkpointing based on machine learning;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide an inventive concept.
“the predictor output is a predicted power level of a future power cycle;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and cannot provide an inventive concept.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are as follows:
“constructing the power level predictor by using a fully connected neural network (FCNN);” Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“wherein the power level predictor is configured to: establish a nonlinear relationship between the input parameters and the predictor output, and predict the predicted power level of the future power cycle based on the nonlinear relationship;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are as follows:
“constructing the power level predictor by using a fully connected neural network (FCNN);” Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide an inventive concept.
“wherein the power level predictor is configured to: establish a nonlinear relationship between the input parameters and the predictor output, and predict the predicted power level of the future power cycle based on the nonlinear relationship;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and cannot provide an inventive concept.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 3
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are as follows:
“wherein the power level predictor comprises an input layer, two hidden layers, and an output layer sequentially connected in that order; the input layer is configured to obtain the initial ambient power, the power average value and the power variance value of the n power cycles before the current power cycle; the two hidden layers are configured to establish the nonlinear relationship between established the input parameters and the predictor output; and the output layer is configured to output the predicted power level of the future power cycle;” Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are as follows:
“wherein the power level predictor comprises an input layer, two hidden layers, and an output layer sequentially connected in that order; the input layer is configured to obtain the initial ambient power, the power average value and the power variance value of the n power cycles before the current power cycle; the two hidden layers are configured to establish the nonlinear relationship between established the input parameters and the predictor output; and the output layer is configured to output the predicted power level of the future power cycle;” Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 4
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 4 recites:
“wherein the determining the checkpoint interval of the current power cycle, based on the predicted power level of the future power cycle and the characteristic of the input power source, comprises: determining the checkpoint interval of the current power cycle based on the following formulas: intv(PLN) =(αN+1)·intvinit α=Norm(0,1)(std)-1/2, where intv(PLN) represents the checkpoint interval of the current power cycle, α represents the characteristic of the input power source, N represents the predicted power level of the future power cycle, intvinit represents an initial checkpoint interval, Norm represents a linear normalization function, and std represents a standardization function;” This claim limitation merely uses textual replacements for particular equations, and is therefore a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 5
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 5 recites:
“determining whether the predicted power level of the future power cycle is correct based on the correct power level;” Determining whether the predicted power level of the future power cycle is correct based on the correct power level is an action that can be performed mentally with the aid of pen and paper, and is therefore a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are as follows:
“wherein after the determining a checkpoint interval of the current power cycle, based on the predicted power level of the future power cycle and a characteristic of an input power source, the setting method further comprises: obtaining, by a power predictor, a correct power level at a beginning of the current power cycle;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“in response to the predicted power level of the future power cycle being incorrect, abandoning an active interval configuration and returning to a latest checkpoint;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are as follows:
“wherein after the determining a checkpoint interval of the current power cycle, based on the predicted power level of the future power cycle and a characteristic of an input power source, the setting method further comprises: obtaining, by a power predictor, a correct power level at a beginning of the current power cycle;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and cannot provide an inventive concept.
“in response to the predicted power level of the future power cycle being incorrect, abandoning an active interval configuration and returning to a latest checkpoint;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and cannot provide an inventive concept.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 6
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 6 recites:
“wherein the in response to the predicted power level of the future power cycle being incorrect, abandoning the active interval configuration and returning to the latest checkpoint, comprises: in response to mispredicting a power-off level as a power-on level, assigning a target interval value to the current power cycle;” Assigning a target interval value to the current power cycle is an action that can be performed mentally with the aid of pen and paper, and is therefore a mental process.
“in response to mispredicting a power-on level as a power-off level, assigning a target value to the checkpoint interval of the future power cycle;” Assigning a target value to the checkpoint interval of the future power cycle is an action that can be performed mentally with the aid of pen and paper, and is therefore a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are as follows:
“in response to mispredicting a lower power level as a higher power level, shortening the checkpoint interval of the current power cycle; and in response to mispredicting a higher power level as a lower power level, increasing the checkpoint interval of the current power cycle;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are as follows:
“in response to mispredicting a lower power level as a higher power level, shortening the checkpoint interval of the current power cycle; and in response to mispredicting a higher power level as a lower power level, increasing the checkpoint interval of the current power cycle;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and cannot provide an inventive concept.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 7
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 7 recites:
“wherein the predictor constructing module is configured to construct a power level predictor;” Constructing a power level predictor is an action that can be performed mentally with the aid of pen and paper, and is therefore a mental process.
“wherein the resilient detection module is configured to determine a checkpoint interval of the current power cycle based on the predicted power level of the future power cycle and a characteristic of an input power source;” Determining a checkpoint interval is an action that can be performed mentally with the aid of pen and paper, and is therefore a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are as follows:
“A device for setting resilient checkpointing based on machine learning;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a predictor constructing module;” “a resilient detection module;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“input parameters of the power level predictor comprise an initial ambient power, and a power average value and a power variance value of n power cycles before the current power cycle; and a predictor output of the power level predictor comprises a predicted power level of a future power cycle, where n ≥ 2;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are as follows:
“A device for setting resilient checkpointing based on machine learning;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide an inventive concept.
“a predictor constructing module;” “a resilient detection module;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide an inventive concept.
“input parameters of the power level predictor comprise an initial ambient power, and a power average value and a power variance value of n power cycles before the current power cycle; and a predictor output of the power level predictor comprises a predicted power level of a future power cycle, where n ≥ 2;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and cannot provide an inventive concept.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 8
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 8 recites:
“determine whether the predicted power level of the future power cycle is correct based on the correct power level;” Determine whether the predicted power level of the future power cycle is correct based on the correct power level is an action that can be performed mentally with the aid of pen and paper, and is therefore a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are as follows:
“an error-processing module and a power predictor;” Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“wherein the power predictor is configured to obtain a correct power level at a beginning of the current power cycle;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“wherein the error-processing module is configured to: obtain the correct power level at a beginning of the current power cycle from the power predictor;” Mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“in response to the predicted power level of the future power cycle being incorrect, abandon an active interval configuration and return to a latest checkpoint;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are as follows:
“an error-processing module and a power predictor;” Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide an inventive concept.
“wherein the power predictor is configured to obtain a correct power level at a beginning of the current power cycle;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and cannot provide an inventive concept.
“wherein the error-processing module is configured to: obtain the correct power level at a beginning of the current power cycle from the power predictor;” Mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional element of “receiving” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of receiving steps amounts to no more than mere data gathering. This element amounts to receiving data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II (i). This cannot provide an inventive concept.
“in response to the predicted power level of the future power cycle being incorrect, abandon an active interval configuration and return to a latest checkpoint;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and cannot provide an inventive concept.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 9
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 9 recites:
wherein the error-processing module is configured to: in response to mispredicting a power-off level as a power-on level, assign a target interval value to the current power cycle;
in response to mispredicting a power-on level as a power-off level, assign a target value to the checkpoint interval of the future power cycle;
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are as follows:
“in response to mispredicting a lower power level as a higher power level, shorten the checkpoint interval of the current power cycle;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“in response to mispredicting a higher power level as a lower power level, increase the checkpoint interval of the current power cycle;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are as follows:
“in response to mispredicting a lower power level as a higher power level, shorten the checkpoint interval of the current power cycle;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and cannot provide an inventive concept.
“in response to mispredicting a higher power level as a lower power level, increase the checkpoint interval of the current power cycle;” The limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and cannot provide an inventive concept.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is ineligible.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (iCheck: Progressive Checkpointing for Intermittent Systems, published 2020), hereinafter Lim, in view of Liu et al. (Neural Network-based Prediction Algorithms for In-Door Multi-Source Energy Harvesting System for Non-Volatile Processors, published 2016), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 1, Lim teaches,
A setting method for resilient checkpointing [Abstract, we propose a new intermittent checkpointing strategy, iCheck], comprising:
inputting input parameters comprising an initial ambient power (Sect III (C), para 1, data of the harvested energy), a power average value and a power variance value of n power cycles (Sect III (C), para 1, statistical data of the harvested energy; note: power average value is considered as shown by the horizontal line in Fig. 4(a), and power variance is considered as shown in Fig. 4(a), i.e. y-axis) before a current power cycle into predictor to obtain a predictor output [Sect III (A), para 1, The triggering and checkpointing are performed repeatedly until a power loss. Upon the power resumption, the recovery procedure will be taken place before the above steps can be performed; Sect III (B), para 4, The examples of the ambient energy signals and the corresponding statistical data are shown in Figs. 4 and 5; Sect III (C), para 1, The progressive triggering for each power-on cycle is divided into two phases, i.e., aggressive and conservative phases, by the time Tinitial, which is derived from the statistical data of the harvested energy. Whenever the system boots up at the beginning of each power-on cycle, the first checkpoint interval is initialized to Tinitial that represents the aggressive phase (illustrated in Fig. 6), and the checkpoint intervals are changed accordingly in the following conservative phase],
wherein n ≥ 2 [Sect III (B), para 3, we convert the energy traces into the corresponding rectangular pulses, which are interpreted as the power-on cycles, and the frequency distributions of the power-on cycles for the three energy sources are illustrated in Fig. 5]; and
determining a checkpoint interval of the current power cycle (Sect IV, para 2, the ith checkpointing interval within T), based on the predicted power level of the future power cycle (Sect IV, para 2, expected value of the total forwarding progress) and a characteristic of an input power source (Sect IV, para 2, Given the probability mass function P of the target energy) [Sect IV, para 2, Given the probability mass function P of the target energy trace, the equation finds the ith checkpointing interval within T leading to the maximized forwarding progress, where E(Xi) is the expected value of the total forwarding progress when the checkpointing interval ti is adopted].
Lim does not teach A method for resilient checkpointing based on machine learning comprising: constructing a power level predictor; the power level predictor; and the predictor output is a predicted power level of a future power cycle.
Liu teaches,
A method for resilient checkpointing based on machine learning comprising: constructing a power level predictor; the power level predictor [Sect 1, para 4, In this paper we propose artificial neural network-based power harvesting prediction methods which are responsible for predicting the time of the next power failure and compensating the power failure through triggering the OS scheduler]; and
the predictor output is a predicted power level of a future power cycle [Sect 4, para 1, This section presents neural network-based prediction algorithms for single-source power harvesting. Once a power failure is predicted, i.e., the input harvesting power is predicted to drop below a predefined threshold value Pth, the prediction algorithm will trigger the scheduler with the predicted power failure time, and coordinates with the task scheduler in the OS of NVP for scheduling tasks and per forming checkpointing. In the coming clock cycles, the scheduler will work with the harvesting system to compensate the power failure caused by unstable ambient energy sources].
Liu is analogous to the claimed invention as they both relate to determining checkpoints using machine learning. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim’s teachings to incorporate the teachings of Liu and provide a machine learning power level predictor in order to automate the process of determining optimal varied checkpoints.
Regarding claim 7, Lim further teaches,
A device for setting resilient checkpointing [Abstract, we propose a new intermittent checkpointing strategy, iCheck; Para III (A), para 1, The system architecture of the capacitor-less intermittent device is illustrated in Fig. 3. iCheck is a system service as part of the resource management software (e.g., operating system) for the device], comprising:
input parameters comprise an initial ambient power (Sect III (C), para 1, data of the harvested energy), and a power average value and a power variance value of n power cycles (Sect III (C), para 1, statistical data of the harvested energy; note: power average value is considered as shown by the horizontal line in Fig. 4(a), and power variance is considered as shown in Fig. 4(a), i.e. y-axis) before the current power cycle; and a predictor output [Sect III (A), para 1, The triggering and checkpointing are performed repeatedly until a power loss. Upon the power resumption, the recovery procedure will be taken place before the above steps can be performed; Sect III (B), para 4, The examples of the ambient energy signals and the corresponding statistical data are shown in Figs. 4 and 5; Sect III (C), para 1, The progressive triggering for each power-on cycle is divided into two phases, i.e., aggressive and conservative phases, by the time Tinitial, which is derived from the statistical data of the harvested energy. Whenever the system boots up at the beginning of each power-on cycle, the first checkpoint interval is initialized to Tinitial that represents the aggressive phase (illustrated in Fig. 6), and the checkpoint intervals are changed accordingly in the following conservative phase],
where n ≥ 2 [Sect III (B), para 3, we convert the energy traces into the corresponding rectangular pulses, which are interpreted as the power-on cycles, and the frequency distributions of the power-on cycles for the three energy sources are illustrated in Fig. 5]; and
a resilient detection module, wherein the resilient detection module is configured to determine a checkpoint interval of the current power cycle (Sect IV, para 2, the ith checkpointing interval within T) based on the predicted power level of the future power cycle (Sect IV, para 2, expected value of the total forwarding progress)and a characteristic of an input power source (Sect IV, para 2, Given the probability mass function P of the target energy) [Sect IV, para 2, Given the probability mass function P of the target energy trace, the equation finds the ith checkpointing interval within T leading to the maximized forwarding progress, where E(Xi) is the expected value of the total forwarding progress when the checkpointing interval ti is adopted].
Lim does not teach setting resilient checkpointing based on machine learning, comprising: a predictor constructing module, wherein the predictor constructing module is configured to construct a power level predictor, output of the power level predictor comprises a predicted power level of a future power cycle.
Liu teaches,
setting resilient checkpointing based on machine learning, comprising: a predictor constructing module, wherein the predictor constructing module is configured to construct a power level predictor [Sect 1, para 4, In this paper we propose artificial neural network-based power harvesting prediction methods which are responsible for predicting the time of the next power failure and compensating the power failure through triggering the OS scheduler], output of the power level predictor comprises a predicted power level of a future power cycle [Sect 4, para 1, This section presents neural network-based prediction algorithms for single-source power harvesting. Once a power failure is predicted, i.e., the input harvesting power is predicted to drop below a predefined threshold value Pth, the prediction algorithm will trigger the scheduler with the predicted power failure time, and coordinates with the task scheduler in the OS of NVP for scheduling tasks and per forming checkpointing. In the coming clock cycles, the scheduler will work with the harvesting system to compensate the power failure caused by unstable ambient energy sources].
Liu is analogous to the claimed invention as they both relate to determining checkpoints using machine learning. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim’s teachings to incorporate the teachings of Liu and provide a machine learning power level predictor in order to automate the process of determining optimal varied checkpoints.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Liu, and in further view of Zanpure (US 10977559 B2), hereinafter Zanpure, and Kohl et al. (US 20260212950 A1), hereinafter Kohl.
Regarding claim 2, Lim-Liu teach the limitations of claim 1 including constructing the power level predictor, the power level predictor, and the predicted power level of the future power cycle (Liu, Sect 4, para 1).
Lim-Liu do not teach predictor by using a fully connected neural network (FCNN), wherein predictor is configured to: establish a nonlinear relationship between the input parameters and the predictor output, and predict based on the nonlinear relationship.
Zanpure teaches,
predictor by using a neural network, wherein predictor is configured to: establish a nonlinear relationship between the input parameters and the predictor output [Abstract, A method and a system are provided for predicting a non-linear relationship between a plurality of parameters in a deep neural network framework. The method comprises receiving, by an application server, a plurality of parameter values associated with the plurality of parameters. The method further comprises selecting, by the application server, an activation function based on a desired output], and predict based on the nonlinear relationship [Col 10, lines 51-54, the prediction unit 210 may be configured to generate graphs that may be indicative of the non-linear relationship between each of the plurality of parameters in the testing file].
Zanpure is analogous to the claimed invention as they both relate to predictive models. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim’s teachings to incorporate the teachings of Zanpure and provide a non-linear relationship between input and output in order to improve model complexity.
Lim-Liu-Zanpure do not teach a fully connected neural network (FCNN).
Kohl teaches,
a fully connected neural network (FCNN) [Para 0082, the main folding neural network 600 processes the updated pair embeddings 116 to generate a distance map… the folding neural network may apply one or more fully-connected neural network layers].
Kohl is analogous to the claimed invention as they both relate to predictive models. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim’s teachings to incorporate the teachings of Kohl and provide a fully connected neural network in order to make complex, non-linear predictions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8, and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art of record Lim et al. (iCheck: Progressive Checkpointing for Intermittent Systems) discloses inputting initial and statistical power value information into a predictor to determine checkpoint intervals.
Second closest prior art Liu et al. (Neural Network-based Prediction Algorithms for In Door Multi-Source Energy Harvesting System for Non-Volatile Processors) discloses a power level predictor for predicting power failure of a power source and performing checkpointing.
Third closes prior art Zanpure (US 10977559 B2) discloses a neural network predictor that establishes a nonlinear relationship between input and predictor output.
However, the prior art of record does not teach the particular sequence of neural network layers, configuration for layer input, formulas, power level determination and response, in combination with other features as recited in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED RAYHAN AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-0286. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, David Yi can be reached at (571) 270-7519. 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.
/SYED RAYHAN AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2126
/DAVID YI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2126
Prosecution Insights