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 .
This is a Final Office Action responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 5/28/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended the claims to include new limitations necessitating a new search.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernat et al. (US 2023/0259185) in view of Therien et al. (US 2017/0177407).
With respect to claim 1, Bernat discloses: determining a priority level associated with a workload ([0102], [0131], priority levels are included in the SLA, cooling is based on those priority levels, the workload can be an application executed in a virtual machine or container);
determining, based on the priority level associated with the workload, a threshold cooling level of a computing unit implementing the workload ([0121], [0131], [0136], [0140], [0207]; “2404” in Fig. 24; expected cooling parameters can include expected temperatures of the component, which are determined based on SLAs);
receiving, a current temperature of the computing unit implementing the workload ([0043], [0121], [0137], [0209], “2408” in Fig. 24; “actual temperatures of the components”); and
adjusting, based on the threshold cooling level of the computing unit implementing the workload and the current temperature of the computing unit implementing the workload, a usage level of a cooling system cooling the computing unit implementing the workload ([0122], [0134], [0138]-[0140], [0155]-[0157], [0210]-[0213]; cooling fluid is redistributed based on comparing actual temperatures to expected temperatures; “2416” in Fig. 24).
Bernat does not specifically disclose: receiving, at a base motherboard controller (BMC) associated with the computing unit implementing the workload, a process hot signal indicating that execution of the workload is increasing a temperature of the computing unit and adjusting by the BMC the process hot signal.
However, Therien discloses receiving, at a base motherboard controller (BMC) associated with the computing unit implementing the workload, a process hot signal indicating that execution of the workload is increasing a temperature of the computing unit and adjusting by the BMC the process hot signal ([0021], the “hot signal” corresponds to the lower or hot thermal output and it is adjusted based on migrating the threads between cores, i.e., the hot signal or the measured thermal output changes/adjusts).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Therien to optimally utilize computing resources and ensure lower overall stress on the resources due to thermal constraints.
With respect to claim 3, Bernat discloses: wherein determining a priority level associated with the workload further comprising: receiving the workload at a virtual machine (VM); determining a priority level of the workload; and determining the priority level associated with the VM based on the priority level of the workload ([0115], [0126], “perform a workload (e.g., an application 1632 executed in a virtual machine)).
With respect to claim 4, Bernat discloses: wherein determining a priority level of the workload further comprising: determining the workload type as being one of a production workload and a non- production workload; and assigning a higher priority level to a production workload compared to a priority level assigned to a non-production workload ([0102]-[0103], [0115]).
With respect to claim 5, Bernat discloses: wherein determining a priority level of the workload further comprising: determining the workload type as being one of a latency-critical workload and a non- latency-critical workload; and assigning a higher priority level to a latency-critical workload compared to a priority level assigned to a non-latency-critical workload (id.).
With respect to claim 9, Bernat discloses: wherein the cooling system includes at least one cooling fans configured to cool the computing unit implementing the workload ([0043], [0054], [0056], [0062]’ “fan speed” or “fan use”).
With respect to claims 10, 12, and 13, they recite similar limitations as claims 1, 4, and 5, respectively, and are therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
With respect to claims 15-18, they recite similar limitations as claims 1, 3-5, respectively, and are therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernat et al. (US 2023/0259185) in view of Therien et al. (US 2017/0177407) further in view of Seo et al. (US 10120426).
With respect to claim 2, Bernat does not specifically disclose: wherein the threshold cooling level of a computing unit implementing a high priority workload is lower than a threshold cooling level of a computing unit implementing a low priority workload.
However, Seo discloses: wherein the threshold cooling level of a computing unit implementing a high priority workload is lower than a threshold cooling level of a computing unit implementing a low priority workload (col. 18, line 44 – line 30 of col. 19; col. 27, lines 27-45).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the thermal management techniques of Seo to ensure a required performance based on the importance of a task is guaranteed (col. 3, lines 36-41, Seo).
With respect to claim 11, it recites similar limitations as claim 2 and is, therefore, rejected under the same citations and rationale.
Claim(s) 6-8, 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernat et al. (US 2023/0259185) in view of Therien et al. (US 2017/0177407) further in view of Kumar (WO 2015/183528).
Kumar was cited in the 01/16/2025 IDS.
With respect to claim 6, Bernat does not specifically disclose: determining a throttling residency of a workload at the computing unit implementing the workload; comparing the throttling residency with a throttling residency threshold of the workload; and in response to determining that throttling residency of the workload at the computing unit implementing the workload is above the throttling residency threshold of the workload, increasing the cooling of the computing unit implementing the workload.
However, Kumar discloses: determining a throttling residency of a workload at the computing unit implementing the workload; comparing the throttling residency with a throttling residency threshold of the workload; and in response to determining that throttling residency of the workload at the computing unit implementing the workload is above the throttling residency threshold of the workload, increasing the cooling of the computing unit implementing the workload ([0005]-[0006], [0041], [0045], [0054], [0056], [0062], [0068]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kumar to reduce power consumption by putting the CPU in a low power state when required. Reducing power consumption by CPU throttling reduces costs as well as lowers temperatures.
With respect to claim 7, Kumar discloses: wherein the throttling residency threshold of the task is based on a priority level of the workload (id., Bernat discloses workloads can be executing in a virtual machine in [0102]).
With respect to claim Kumar discloses: wherein the throttling residency threshold of the VM is based on an energy performance preference (EPP) parameter associated with the computing unit implementing the workload ([0005]-[0006], [0041], [0045], [0054], [0056], [0062], [0068], Bernat discloses workloads can be executing in a virtual machines in [0102]).
With respect to claim 14, it recites similar limitations as claim 6 and is, therefore, rejected under the same citations and rational.
With respect to claims 19, and 20, they recite similar limitations as claims 6 and 7, and are, therefore, rejected under the same citations and rational.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 WISSAM RASHID whose telephone number is (571)270-3758. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aimee Li can be reached at (571)272-4169. 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.
/WISSAM RASHID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights