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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein each of the first and the second power distribution units distributes power to each pair of power supply units of the plurality of power supply units from one circuit breaker to ensure that each pair of power supply units of the plurality of power supply units operates from a same electrical phase.” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “to eliminate reliance on an external management network”. This claim language is interpreted as an intended result and will not be given patentable weight.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 14, 15, 17, and 18 recite “to prevent triggering of a circuit breaker.” This claim language is interpreted as an intended result and will not be given patentable weight.
Claim 10 recites “to ensure that each pair of power supply units of the plurality of power supply units operates from a same electrical phase.” This claim language is interpreted as an intended result and will not be given patentable weight.
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 10-11 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 10 recites “each of the first and the second power distribution units distributes power to each pair of power supply units of the plurality of power supply units from one circuit breaker to ensure that each pair of power supply units of the plurality of power supply units operates from a same electrical phase.” It is unclear how the same pair of power supply units is ensured to operate in the same electrical phase by including a single circuit breaker to a pair of power supply units. The pair of power supplies being connected shared power supply line might guarantee the operating with the same electrical phase but a circuit breaker on connects or disconnects power from the line and is not capable of ensuring the same electrical phase.
Claim 11 is also rejected as incorporating the deficiencies of the claims that they are dependent upon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Wolford et al. (US 20230229223) in view of Huang et al. (US 20170285728).
Regarding claim 1, Wolford teaches
A computer-implemented method for preventing loss of power to a server rack due to a failure in a power delivery system, the method comprising:
detecting a failure of one or more power supply units (Fig. 1 (power supply – 108) providing power to components of a server (Fig. 1, (compute node – 114a) of the server rack (Fig. 1 (data system – 101); (Fig. 1 [0032], “receiving a power supply alert indicative of a failure of one or more the PSUs of the plurality of supply enclosures.”)
determining a number of available power supply units in the server in response to detecting the failure of the one or more power supply units; and (Fig. 5A, [0032], “ in response to receiving the power supply alert, the method includes transmitting a power reduction command to reduce power consumption of the computing equipment to a minimum power consumption, identifying a number of PSUs that have failed, recalculating the power cap limit based on a current number of functional PSUs of the plurality of supply enclosures”)
capping power drawn by the server in proportion to the number of available power supply units in the server, ([0032], “in response to receiving the power supply alert, the method includes transmitting a power reduction command to reduce power consumption of the computing equipment to a minimum power consumption, identifying a number of PSUs that have failed, recalculating the power cap limit based on a current number of functional PSUs of the plurality of supply enclosures” and [0035], “the computing equipment includes compute nodes and a controller regulates power consumption of the compute nodes to below the power cap limit by regulating clock speeds of processors, accelerators, and/or GPUs of the compute nodes.”)
Wolford does not teach that a BMC performs detecting, determining, and capping.
Huang teaches
server, wherein the detecting, determining, and capping are performed locally within the server by a base management controller of the server to eliminate reliance on an external management network. ([0018], “In this example, a system is using multiple power supply units: PSU0 208 and PSU1 210. Each of these power supply units 208, 210 communicates information regarding health/status of the respective power supply unit to a CPLD (Complex Programmable Logic Device) 206 via respective signal lines 216. The CPLD 206 communicates the status of the power supply units to a BMC (Baseboard Management Controller) 204, which is also in communication with the respective power supplies 208, 210 using a SMBUS (System Management Bus) 214. While the BMC 204 is illustrated as interacting with the power supply units 208, 210, in other configurations the monitoring of the power supply units can be performed directly by the processor 202, or by a separate (i.e., not physically co-located) management controller. … Similarly, the role of the CPLD 206 illustrated can, in other embodiments, be fulfilled by either a management controller, a CPU 202, or other processing device The CPLD 206, for example, receives updates from PSUs indicating the “health” of the individual PSU (i.e., the ability to continue performing designated functions). Exemplary PUS healthy signals can include: a signal indicating the Direct Current of the PSS is OK (i.e., DC_OK), a signal indicating Alternating Current of the PSU is OK (i.e, AC_OK), a signal indicating the PSU is sending out alerts (such as ALERT#), etc. The BMC 204, via the SMBUS 214, can, for example, increase or decrease the amount of power being output by the respective power supplies 208, 210. The BMC 204 also communicates with a system CPU (Computer Processing Unit) 202. For example, the BMC 204 can cause the CPU 202 to use less power by sending a “power decrease” signal 212.” And [0024], “Failure of a PSU can, however, trigger the left portion of the flow chart, with software throttling of the CPU 416 and possible hardware throttling 424. When a PSU fails 414 (for example, the PSU is broken or the plug comes out), and power is over PSU×1 W, the BMC informs the CPU to start power clamping 416 (by reducing processor power as described in FIG. 3). First, the BMC indicates the CPU should set the CPU power to 90%, at which point the BMC will check the system power consumption. If the power consumption remains greater than PSU×1 W 418 (i.e., if the system power is above what the system can currently provide with the remaining power supply units), the BMC iteratively informs the CPU to power down additional percentages 416. Once the system power consumption is lower than PSU×1 W or another PSU is plugged in, the BMC releases the power clamping and the CPU can return to normal operation. If, however, the CPU reaches a minimal amount of power (i.e., 50%) and the system power consumption is still greater than PSU×1 W 422, the system 100 can initiate a hardware throttling 424. If the hardware throttling 424 reduces the power below the PSU×1 W threshold 426, the system 100 can continue to operate in a throttled/clamped state until repairs/corrections can be made.”)
Wolford and Huang are analogous art. Huang is cited to teach a similar concept of power management within a server rack. Huang teaches using a baseboard management controller to determine power supply failures, the amount of potential power based on the operating power supplies, and capping/throttling processors based on the amount of power. Based on Huang, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Wolford to use a BMC to provide power management control when power supplies fail. Furthermore, being able to use a BMC to provide power management control when power supplies fail improves on Wolford by being able to prevent power failures in a rack of servers and decrease the system response time to the failure. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the invention it would have been advantageous to make this modification because “The disclosed smart power clamping results in an improvement in a power decrease such that lag is less perceptible and damage to still operational power supplies can be reduced.”, [0005] and “Advantages of this system include a decrease in damage to power supply units and a decrease in system lag (response time to the need for additional power).”, [0026]
As to claim 12, Wolford and Huang teach this claim according to the reasoning provided in claim 1.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belady in view of Sone (US 20050114715).
Regarding claim 10, Belady teaches
A server rack, comprising:
a plurality of servers, wherein each server of the plurality of servers is powered by a first power distribution unit and a second power distribution unit, wherein each server of the plurality of servers comprises a plurality of power supply units configured to provide power to components of the server, wherein each of the first and the second power distribution units operates using three-phase electric power, wherein each of the first and the second power distribution units distributes power to each pair of power supply units of the plurality of power supply units from one circuit breaker to ensure that each pair of power supply units of the plurality of power supply units operates from a same electrical phase. (Abstract, “a rack having a plurality of servers and being connected to two separate alternating current (AC) power grids that distribute power to the plurality of servers with load of the rack being distributed across both AC power grids.”, [0017], “Cable 104 couples to power distribution unit (PDU) 202 within the power distribution system 200 of equipment rack 100. PDU 202 may be used to provide a number of functions, such as fusing, branching, isolation, and surge protection, to name a few examples. In the embodiment of FIG. 1, for example, the PDU 202 branches the main power feed from cable 104 into two separate circuits 204 and 206. Additional PDUs (not shown) may be added to provide more branches, or to provide redundant power when coupled to additional redundant power feeds.” [0041], “ In one embodiment, redundant power is designated as N+N, where the first digit is the number of power supplies needed to support the power configuration of the server and the second digit is the number of online spares. In a 1+1 configuration, a single power source supplies power to the server and a second, separate power source provides redundancy. Both supplies can be simultaneously on to deliver fifty percent of the power needed to distribute the load across both supplies.” And [0035], “, fault tolerant power for servers (S1 to SN) that utilize three-phase power. As shown, each rack receives power from each grid line. Power from both grids is evenly distributed across the loads for each of the racks and/or the entire load for the datacenter. Further, power for each grid is evenly distributed across the three phases within each rack. In one exemplary embodiment, the servers are randomly connected to Grid 1 and Grid to provide an overall balance load across the entire datacenter. In another exemplary embodiment, each grid line supplies three-phase power to alternating servers in order to distribute load evenly across both grid lines. By way of example, a first server (S1) in rack 1 receives power from Grid 1 (G1) and phase 1 (P1); the second server (S2) in rack 1 receives power from Grid 2 (G2) and phase 1 (P1); the third server (S3) in rack 1 receives power from Grid 1 (G1) and phase 2 (P2); the fourth server (S4) in rack 1 receives power from Grid 2 (G2) and phase 2 (P2); etc. In this manner, the load for each rack is evenly distributed across plural, separate, independent phases for each power supply.”)
Belady teaches circuit breakers but does not teach one circuit breaker per pair of power supply units.
Sone teaches
power to each pair of power supply units of the plurality of power supply units from one circuit breaker (Fig. 10 (AC box 1 - 710)) to ensure that each pair of power supply units (Fig. 10 (power supply 11 and power supply 21)) of the plurality of power supply units operates from a same electrical phase. (Fig. 10)
Sone and Belady are analogous art. Sone is cited to teach a similar concept of power management within a server rack. Sone teaches using power supply pairs using the same circuit breaker. Based on Sone, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Belady to use the same circuit breaker for a power supply pair while using a different circuit breaker for another power supply pair. Furthermore, being able to use the same circuit breaker for a power supply pair while using a different circuit breaker for another power supply pair improves on Belady by being able to prevent power failures in a rack of servers. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the invention it would have been advantageous to make this modification because “Since the disk array device 100 is required extremely high reliability as mentioned before, the power supply to the disk array device 100 is duplexed for redundancy as shown in FIG. 10. Concretely, each of the redundant (duplexed) AC boxes 700 supplies power to redundant AC/DC power supplies 600 which are redundantly provided to each device load (Each device load is provided with the same number of redundant AC/DC power supplies 600.). In this case, the AC boxes 700 are connected so as to supply power to different AC/DC power supplies 600, by which the control of the disk array device 100 can be maintained even in case of failure occurring to an AC box 700, AC/DC power supply 600 or device load”, [0073]
Claim(s) 2-4, 7-9, 13-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolford and Huang in view of Belady et al. (US 20070046103).
Regarding claim 2, Wolford and Huang does not teach but Belady teaches wherein the failure of the one or more supply units is caused by a failure of a first power distribution unit of two power distribution units connected to the server rack, wherein each of the two power distribution units is configured to distribute power to the server rack, wherein each of the two power distribution units is further configured to power an entire load of the server rack. ([0037] “each rack includes one or more PDUs … If two 24-A PDUs at 208 V have a limit of 10,000 VA, then two PDUs are sufficient to handle the load of the servers. If power redundancy is desired, then the rack has four 24-A PDUs.” Therefore, when one PDU is sufficient to handle a load, a second PDU is the redundant PDU also able to supply power to the entire load. [0042], “ the redundant power supplies share load. Thus, a 1+1 redundant power system is configured to that during normal power usage, … At the server level, each power supply provides fifty percent of the load. When a failure occurs (example, one of the power feeds goes down), the full load is supplied with the one remaining power supply.”)
Wolford., Huang, and Belady are analogous art. Belady is cited to teach a similar concept of power management within a server rack. Belady teaches using redundant PDU’s and power supplies to prevent power failures as well as providing power to the entire load using one of the PDU’s. Based on Belady, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Wolford and Huang to use redundant PDU’s and power supplies to prevent power failures and to provide power to the entire load using one of the PDU’s. Furthermore, being able to use redundant PDU’s improves on Wolford by being able to prevent power failures in a rack of servers. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the invention it would have been advantageous to make this modification because “When a failure occurs (example, one of the power feeds goes down), the full load is supplied with the one remaining power supply.”
Regarding claim 3, Wolford teaches wherein, in response to the capping of power drawn by the server, currents supplied by a second power distribution unit of the two power distribution units to the available power supply units is reduced to prevent triggering of a circuit breaker. ([0032], “in response to receiving the power supply alert, the method includes transmitting a power reduction command to reduce power consumption of the computing equipment to a minimum power consumption, identifying a number of PSUs that have failed, recalculating the power cap limit based on a current number of functional PSUs of the plurality of supply enclosures” and [0035], “the computing equipment includes compute nodes and a controller regulates power consumption of the compute nodes to below the power cap limit by regulating clock speeds of processors, accelerators, and/or GPUs of the compute nodes.” And [0044], “power source 120 feeds a panel 121 with circuit breakers, which feeds each PSU 108.” Therefore, when a power supply fails, a new lower power cap is set which in turn reduces the power/current draw on the power supply unit(s) and in turn the current to the power distribution unit/power source which is supplying power to the power supply units supplies less current and prevents the triggering of the circuit breaker.)
Regarding claim 4, Wolford teaches wherein, in response to the capping of power drawn by the server, phase currents of a line cord received by a second power distribution unit of the two power distribution units are reduced to prevent triggering of a circuit breaker. ([0049], “The power source 120, may supply single phase alternating current (“AC”) power, three-phase AC power, direct current (“DC”) power, etc.”, [0051], “the redundancy apparatus 102 takes action to limit power consumption based on this power supply alert before determining the nature of the problem that caused the power supply alert to be sent.” [0032], “in response to receiving the power supply alert, the method includes transmitting a power reduction command to reduce power consumption of the computing equipment to a minimum power consumption, identifying a number of PSUs that have failed, recalculating the power cap limit based on a current number of functional PSUs of the plurality of supply enclosures” and [0035], “the computing equipment includes compute nodes and a controller regulates power consumption of the compute nodes to below the power cap limit by regulating clock speeds of processors, accelerators, and/or GPUs of the compute nodes.” And [0044], “power source 120 feeds a panel 121 with circuit breakers, which feeds each PSU 108.” Therefore, when a power supply fails, a new lower power cap is set which in turn reduces the power/current draw on the power supply unit(s) and in turn the current to the second power distribution unit/power source which is supplying power to the power supply units supplies less current and prevents the triggering of the circuit breaker.)
As to claim 13, Wolford, Huang, and Belady teach this claim according to the reasoning provided in claim 2.
As to claim 7, 14, 18, Wolford, Huang, and Belady teach this claim according to the reasoning provided in claim 3.
As to claim 15, Wolford, Huang, and Belady teach this claim according to the reasoning provided in claim 4.
As to claims 8 and 19, Wolford, Huang, and Belady teach this claim according to the reasoning provided in claims 2 and 3.
As to claims 9 and 20, Wolford, Huang, and Belady teach this claim according to the reasoning provided in claim 2 and 4.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolford, Huang, and Belady as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gu et al. (US 20190097455).
Regarding claim 5, Wolford and Huang do not teach but Belady teaches wherein each of the two power distribution units is configured to distribute power to the server rack, wherein each of the two power distribution units is further configured to power an entire load of the server rack. ([0037] “each rack includes one or more PDUs … If two 24-A PDUs at 208 V have a limit of 10,000 VA, then two PDUs are sufficient to handle the load of the servers. If power redundancy is desired, then the rack has four 24-A PDUs.” Therefore, when one PDU is sufficient to handle a load, a second PDU is the redundant PDU also able to supply power to the entire load. [0042], “ the redundant power supplies share load. Thus, a 1+1 redundant power system is configured to that during normal power usage, … At the server level, each power supply provides fifty percent of the load. When a failure occurs (example, one of the power feeds goes down), the full load is supplied with the one remaining power supply.”)
Wolford, Huang, and Belady are analogous art. Belady is cited to teach a similar concept of power management within a server rack. Belady teaches using redundant PDU’s and power supplies to prevent power failures as well as providing power to the entire load using one of the PDU’s. Based on Belady, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Wolford and Huang to use redundant PDU’s and power supplies to prevent power failures and to provide power to the entire load using one of the PDU’s. Furthermore, being able to use redundant PDU’s improves on Wolford by being able to prevent power failures in a rack of servers. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the invention it would have been advantageous to make this modification because “When a failure occurs (example, one of the power feeds goes down), the full load is supplied with the one remaining power supply.”, [0042]
Wolford, Huang, and Belady do not teach but Gu teaches
wherein the failure of the one or more supply units is caused by a failure of receipt of current of a first phase of a line cord by two power distribution units connected to the server rack, (Fig. 6, [0140], “the power supply state monitoring unit monitors power supply states of the first input power supply and the second input power supply in real time.” [0140], “In a case where the power supply state monitoring unit monitors that the first input power supply, that is, the three-phase 380V alternating current power supply, operates normally, and the second input power supply, that is, the single-phase 220V alternating current power supply, operates abnormally” and [0148], “ in a case where the second input power supply, that is, the single-phase 220V alternating current power supply, operates abnormally, and the voltage supplied by the first input power supply is distributed into three single-phase voltages L1, L2 and L3 by the power supply distributing unit, each of the three power supply units PSU1, PSU2 and PSU3 in the first power supply group is controlled to receive the three single-phase voltages L1, L2 and L3 through the main input port A, and each of the three power supply units PSU3, PSU4 and PSU5 in the second power supply group is controlled to receive the three single-phase voltages L1, L2 and L3 through the main input port B”)
Wolford, Huang, Belady, and Gu are analogous art. Gu is cited to teach a similar concept of power management within a server rack. Gu teaches detecting when a power supplied to the power supplies is abnormal/fails (i.e. a phase fails) and supplies different power phases which are normal to prevent power failures to the servers in the rack. Based on Gu, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Wolford, Huang, and Belady to detect when a supply of power to the power supplies is abnormal/fails (i.e. a phase fails) and supplies different power phases which are operating normally to the power supplies to prevent power failures to the servers in the rack. Furthermore, being able to use a different power source connected to the power supplies when there is a power failure improves on Wolford, Huang, and Belady by being able to prevent power failures in a rack of servers. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the invention it would have been advantageous to make this modification to increase reliability of the power supplying system.
Regarding claim 6, Wolford, Huang, and Belady do not teach but Gu teaches wherein, in response to the capping of power drawn by the server, currents of a second or a third phase of the line cord received by one of the two power distribution units are reduced to prevent triggering of a circuit breaker. (Fig. 6, [0140], “the power supply state monitoring unit monitors power supply states of the first input power supply and the second input power supply in real time.” [0140], “In a case where the power supply state monitoring unit monitors that the first input power supply, that is, the three-phase 380V alternating current power supply, operates normally, and the second input power supply, that is, the single-phase 220V alternating current power supply, operates abnormally” and [0148], “ in a case where the second input power supply, that is, the single-phase 220V alternating current power supply, operates abnormally, and the voltage supplied by the first input power supply is distributed into three single-phase voltages L1, L2 and L3 by the power supply distributing unit, each of the three power supply units PSU1, PSU2 and PSU3 in the first power supply group is controlled to receive the three single-phase voltages L1, L2 and L3 through the main input port A, and each of the three power supply units PSU3, PSU4 and PSU5 in the second power supply group is controlled to receive the three single-phase voltages L1, L2 and L3 through the main input port B”)
Wolford, Huang, Belady, and Gu are analogous art. Gu is cited to teach a similar concept of power management within a server rack. Gu teaches detecting when a power supplied to the power supplies is abnormal/fails (i.e. a phase fails) and supplies different power phases which are normal to prevent power failures to the servers in the rack. Based on Gu, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Wolford, Huang, and Belady to detect when a supply of power to the power supplies is abnormal/fails (i.e. a phase fails) and supplies different power phases which are operating normally to the power supplies to prevent power failures to the servers in the rack. Furthermore, being able to use a different power source to the power supplies when there is a power failure improves on Wolford, Huang, and Belady by being able to prevent power failures in a rack of servers. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the invention it would have been advantageous to make this modification to increase reliability of the power supplying system.
As to claim 16, Wolford, Huang, Belady, and Gu teach this claim according to the reasoning provided in claim 5.
As to claim 17, Wolford, Huang, Belady, and Gu teach this claim according to the reasoning provided in claim 6.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belady and Sone as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Wolford and Huang.
Belady and Sone do not teach but Wolford teaches,
wherein, in response to detecting a failure of one or more of the plurality of power supply units, the base management controller is configured to determine a number of available power supply units in the server and cap power drawn by the server in proportion to the number of available power supply units in the server. ((Fig. 1, (compute node – 114a) of the server rack (Fig. 1 (data system – 101); (Fig. 1 [0032], “”, Fig. 5A, [0032], “receiving a power supply alert indicative of a failure of one or more the PSUs of the plurality of supply enclosures. … in response to receiving the power supply alert, the method includes transmitting a power reduction command to reduce power consumption of the computing equipment to a minimum power consumption, identifying a number of PSUs that have failed, recalculating the power cap limit based on a current number of functional PSUs of the plurality of supply enclosures” and [0035], “the computing equipment includes compute nodes and a controller regulates power consumption of the compute nodes to below the power cap limit by regulating clock speeds of processors, accelerators, and/or GPUs of the compute nodes.”)
Belady, Sone, and Wolford are analogous art. Wolford is cited to teach a similar concept of power management within a server rack. Wolford detecting power supply failures, determining the number of power supplies that have failed to determine the amount of potential power based on the operating power supplies, and capping/throttling processors based on the amount of power. Based on Wolford, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Belady, Sone, and Wolford to use provide power management control when power supplies fail and cap operation of the system based on the power limitations. Furthermore, being able to detect power supply failures, determine available power and cap power usage when power supplies fail improves on Wolford by being able to prevent power failures in a rack of servers. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the invention it would have been advantageous to make this modification to prevent power failures in the system.
Belady, Sone, and Wolford do not teach but Sone teaches
wherein each of the plurality of servers comprises a base management controller configured to monitor a failure of the plurality of power supply units, … the base management controller ([0018], “In this example, a system is using multiple power supply units: PSU0 208 and PSU1 210. Each of these power supply units 208, 210 communicates information regarding health/status of the respective power supply unit to a CPLD (Complex Programmable Logic Device) 206 via respective signal lines 216. The CPLD 206 communicates the status of the power supply units to a BMC (Baseboard Management Controller) 204, which is also in communication with the respective power supplies 208, 210 using a SMBUS (System Management Bus) 214. While the BMC 204 is illustrated as interacting with the power supply units 208, 210, in other configurations the monitoring of the power supply units can be performed directly by the processor 202, or by a separate (i.e., not physically co-located) management controller. … Similarly, the role of the CPLD 206 illustrated can, in other embodiments, be fulfilled by either a management controller, a CPU 202, or other processing device The CPLD 206, for example, receives updates from PSUs indicating the “health” of the individual PSU (i.e., the ability to continue performing designated functions). Exemplary PUS healthy signals can include: a signal indicating the Direct Current of the PSS is OK (i.e., DC_OK), a signal indicating Alternating Current of the PSU is OK (i.e, AC_OK), a signal indicating the PSU is sending out alerts (such as ALERT#), etc. The BMC 204, via the SMBUS 214, can, for example, increase or decrease the amount of power being output by the respective power supplies 208, 210. The BMC 204 also communicates with a system CPU (Computer Processing Unit) 202. For example, the BMC 204 can cause the CPU 202 to use less power by sending a “power decrease” signal 212.” And [0024], “Failure of a PSU can, however, trigger the left portion of the flow chart, with software throttling of the CPU 416 and possible hardware throttling 424. When a PSU fails 414 (for example, the PSU is broken or the plug comes out), and power is over PSU×1 W, the BMC informs the CPU to start power clamping 416 (by reducing processor power as described in FIG. 3). First, the BMC indicates the CPU should set the CPU power to 90%, at which point the BMC will check the system power consumption. If the power consumption remains greater than PSU×1 W 418 (i.e., if the system power is above what the system can currently provide with the remaining power supply units), the BMC iteratively informs the CPU to power down additional percentages 416. Once the system power consumption is lower than PSU×1 W or another PSU is plugged in, the BMC releases the power clamping and the CPU can return to normal operation. If, however, the CPU reaches a minimal amount of power (i.e., 50%) and the system power consumption is still greater than PSU×1 W 422, the system 100 can initiate a hardware throttling 424. If the hardware throttling 424 reduces the power below the PSU×1 W threshold 426, the system 100 can continue to operate in a throttled/clamped state until repairs/corrections can be made.”)
Belady, Sone, Wolford and Huang are analogous art. Huang is cited to teach a similar concept of power management within a server rack. Huang teaches using a baseboard management controller to determine power supply failures, the amount of potential power based on the operating power supplies, and capping/throttling processors based on the amount of power. Based on Huang, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Belady, Sone, and Wolford to use a BMC to provide power management control when power supplies fail. Furthermore, being able to use a BMC to provide power management control when power supplies fail improves on Wolford by being able to prevent power failures in a rack of servers and decrease the system response time to the failure. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the invention it would have been advantageous to make this modification because “The disclosed smart power clamping results in an improvement in a power decrease such that lag is less perceptible and damage to still operational power supplies can be reduced.”, [0005] and “Advantages of this system include a decrease in damage to power supply units and a decrease in system lag (response time to the need for additional power).”, [0026]
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 and 13-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 10, the Applicant’s representative argues that the limitation “distributing power to each pair of power supply units of the plurality of power supply units from one circuit breaker to ensure that each pair of power supply units of the plurality of power supply units operates from a same electrical phase.” is not taught. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. The Applicant argues that Belady does not teach this limitation. Belady is used to teach that power is distributed to power supply units but is not cited to teach that power to each pair of power supply units receives power distributed to the power supply units via one circuit breaker. The Applicant’s argument is moot for that reason. Sone is used to teach the limitation. Fig. 10 of Sone shows power being receiving power from power supply equipment through a circuit breaker, where each circuit breaker is connected to a pair of power supplies. While Belady teaches that power is supplied out of a power distribution units and provides single phase power to be sent to power supplies, the Examiner stated in the Non-Final office action in the claim interpretation section that “to ensure that each pair of power supply units of the plurality of power supply units operates from a same electrical phase.” does not have patentable weight as it is an intended result. The Applicant’s representative does not argue this point. Since no patentable weight is given to this part of the claim limitation, no art need be applied to it. Therefore, the combination of Belady teaching two power distribution units supplying power to power supplies with Sone that teaches receiving power via a circuit breaker to a pair of power supplies teaches the limitation. The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERI L. HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-0468. The examiner can normally be reached Generally, M-F, 7:30a-4p.
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.
/CHERI L HARRINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2176 July 15, 2026
/JAWEED A ABBASZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights