CTFR 18/459,016 CTFR 89904 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Examiner Notes Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner did not make a 35 USC § 101 rejection regarding the “computer readable storage medium” of claim 16 because Applicant’s specification specifically states that this term is not to be interpreted to include signals. (Applicant’s Specification, [0045], A computer readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media) . The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03): “Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.” Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax, Regular postal mail, or EFS Web (PTO/SB/439). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed March 16, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are allowable because: “Regarding prong one of step 2A, the Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claim 1 of the instant application recites steps that are performed by a machine (e.g., by a processor) and the human mind is not equipped to perform these claimed features "collecting power usage information from a location defining time slots for the computing tasks, wherein each computing task of a set of computing tasks is divided into parts by corresponding time slots of the time slots, and wherein the computing tasks include the set of computing tasks generating, for each time slot of the time slots, a respective linear equation of linear equations, wherein each linear equation of the linear equations provides a sum of power used by each computing task of the computing tasks during a corresponding time slot of the time slots combinations of the linear equations creating a plurality of different solving each combination of linear equations of the plurality of different combinations of the linear equations, to determine a respective assumed task power usage for each computing task of the computing tasks". The above-claimed features are inextricably tied to a machine and computer technology. The present disclosure enables precise per-task power estimation efficiently, without the need for direct measurement, and reduces both the operational complexity and computational load compared to conventional per-task hardware monitoring approaches. Therefore, the Applicant respectfully submits that the features of the amended independent claim 1 do not describe an abstract concept, or a concept similar to those found by the Courts to be Abstract, such as Mental Process.” (Applicant’s Remarks, Pgs. 12-13). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Prong 1 considers whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). As discussed in the 101 rejection below, the step of “collecting power usage information from a location defining time slots for the computing tasks, wherein each computing task of a set of computing tasks is divided into parts by corresponding time slots of the time slots, and wherein the computing tasks include the set of computing task” amounts to insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The steps of “generating, for each time slot of the time slots, a respective linear equation of linear equations, wherein each linear equation of the linear equations provides a sum of power used by each computing task of the computing tasks during a corresponding time slot of the time slots combinations of the linear equations creating a plurality of different[, and] solving each combination of linear equations of the plurality of different combinations of the linear equations, to determine a respective assumed task power usage for each computing task of the computing tasks recite mental processes. the Applicant has shown teaching in the Specification that describes a practical implementation and how the technology is improved and has thus established a clear nexus between the claim language and the practical implementation of the alleged judicial exception, and improvements in the technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception.” (MPEP 2106.05 (a) II). MPEP 2106.04(d) I also states that “[t]he courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).” Furthermore, Applicant’s alleged improvements are not actually realized because computing tasks are scheduled, which can include a human creating a schedule of tasks, but the tasks may not actually be executed according to the “predicted approximate power usage information. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In adhering to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), Step 1 is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Herein, the claims fall within statutory class of process, machine or manufacture. Hence, the claims qualify as potentially eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C §101. With Step 1 being directed to a statutory category, the analysis directed to Step 2A. Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. Prong 1 considers whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). In this case independent claim 1 recites mental processes as applied to human activity. Claim 1 recites: parsing the collected computing task information to determine a predicted approximate power usage information for each computing task; defining time slots for the computing tasks, wherein each computing task of a set of computing tasks is divided into parts by corresponding time slots of the time slots, and wherein the computing tasks include the set of computing tasks; generating, for each time slot of the time slots, a respective linear equation of linear equations, wherein each linear equation of the linear equations provides a sum of power used by each computing task of the computing tasks during a corresponding time slot of the time slots; creating a plurality of different combinations of the linear equations; and solving each combination of linear equations of the plurality of different combinations of the linear equations, to determine a respective assumed task power usage for each computing task of the computing tasks; and scheduling the computing tasks based on the predicted approximate power usage information to improve a usage of power from an unstable power source. Steps a-b, and e-f are limitations that each, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus it is reasonable to identify these limitations as reciting a mental process under Prong 1 of Step 2A. See , MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C). For example, a can person perform the “parsing,” “defining,” and “scheduling” steps with mental evaluation and judgement. Other than reciting generic computing components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic “computer-implemented method” does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Steps c-e recite mathematical concepts. Since the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, analysis flows to Prong 2. Prong 2 considers whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons: The additional elements of a “computer-implemented method” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to using a generic computing component as a tool to apply the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)); The additional elements of “collecting power usage information from a location;” and “collecting computing task information with respect to computing tasks performed at the location” amounts to insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception, the analysis flows to Step 2B. Therein, the elements and combination of elements are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the elements should be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claimed method, computer-readable storage medium, and electronic device each are generically recited and thus do not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Taken as an ordered combination, the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test) that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. The limitations that recite specific computer elements do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. (MPEP § 2106.05 (I)(A)), “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. …mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.” Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Note MPEP 2106.05(a)). Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101. For the above reasons, the claims of this application are not patentable under 35 USC 101. Regarding claims 2, the “suppressing” step is an additional mental process under Prong 1 since this step can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion but for the recitation of generic computing components. For example, a person can think and evaluate whether to suppress a central processing unit’s usage for a task if the task cannot be finished within a scheduled time. Regarding claim 3, the step of “wherein the collected computing task information includes a start time and an end time for the computing tasks” is analyzed as insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) as discussed with reference to the associated “collecting” step of claim 1. Regarding claims 4, the “receiving” and “collecting” steps merely recite insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The “parsing” and “scheduling” steps recite additional mental processes under Prong 1 since these steps can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion but for the recitation of generic computing components. Regarding claims 6, the step of “computing a variance between the assumed task power usage and a real power usage for each solution for each combination of linear equations” is ineligible under Prong 1 because it recites mathematical concepts. The step of “using the solution providing a lowest value of the variance as providing the assumed task power usage” is an additional mental process under Prong 1 since this step can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion but for the recitation of generic computing components. Regarding claims 7, the step of “wherein the time slot is a constant time slot” is analyzed with the “defining” step of claim 5 as an additional mental process under Prong 1 because this step can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion but for the recitation of generic computing components. Regarding claim 8, the step of “measuring an incoming power from the unstable power source” is ineligible under Prong 1 because it recites a mathematical concept. The step of “scheduling the computing tasks based on a knapsack problem algorithm” is an additional mental process under Prong 1 because this step can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion but for the recitation of generic computing components. The step of “wherein the measured incoming power is a knapsack and the scheduled tasks are items to fill the knapsack” is ineligible under prong 1 because it recites a mathematical concept. Regarding claim 9, this claim is not patent eligible for the same reasons given for claim 1 for the common limitations. The recitation of the additional elements of “a processor,” “a data bus coupled to the processor,” “a memory coupled to the data base,” and “a computer-usable medium embodying a computer program code, the computer program code comprising instructions executable by the processor and configured to” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea under Prong 2. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Under Step 2B, since these additional elements merely recite generic computer components to carry out the abstract idea, they do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 10, this claim is similar to claim 2 and is ineligible for the same reasons as claim 2. Regarding claim 11, this claim is similar to claim 3 and is ineligible for the same reasons as claim 3. Regarding claim 12, this claim is similar to claim 4 and is ineligible for the same reasons as claim 4. Regarding claim 14, this claim is similar to claim 6 and is ineligible for the same reasons as claim 6. Regarding claim 15, this claim is similar to claim 8 and is ineligible for the same reasons as claim 8. Regarding claim 16, this claim is not patent eligible for the same reasons given for claim 1 for the common limitations. The recitation of the additional elements of a “computer program product for computing workload management, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computer to cause the computer to” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea under Prong 2. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Under Step 2B, since these additional elements merely recite generic computer components to carry out the abstract idea, they do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 17, this claim is similar to claim 2 and is ineligible for the same reasons as claim 2. Regarding claim 18, this claim is similar to claim 3 and is ineligible for the same reasons as claim 3. Regarding claim 19, this claim is similar to claim 4 and is ineligible for the same reasons as claim 4. Regarding claim 20, this claim is similar to claims 5 and 6 and is ineligible for the same reasons as claims 5 and 6. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA A HEADLY whose telephone number is (571)272-1972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9-5:30pm. 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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 571-272-3338. 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. /MELISSA A. HEADLY/ Examiner Art Unit 2197 /BRADLEY A TEETS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/459,016 Page 2 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/459,016 Page 3 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/459,016 Page 4 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/459,016 Page 5 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/459,016 Page 6 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/459,016 Page 7 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/459,016 Page 8 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/459,016 Page 9 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/459,016 Page 12 Art Unit: 2197
Prosecution Insights