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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Amendment filed 6/02/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bash (US 2011/0107332) in view of Cencini (US 2017/0264493) in further view of Van De Groenedaal (US 2021/0117242).
As per claim 1, Bash discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
sensing a thermal event in a data center, responsive to the sensed thermal event, identifying an affected server (Paragraph 13 “In one embodiment, thermal imbalances are corrected by incorporating thermal monitoring and virtual machine placement policies into a resource manager or controller (as shown in FIGS. 3 and 4). The resource manager or controller monitors servers and storage components and determines real-time temperature distribution from variously positioned sensors in the data center. Through the workload placement policies implemented by the resource manager and/or controller, the servers and storage components in the data center are operated under a dynamic thermal management scheme designed to enable efficient cooling operation. In one regard, the dynamic thermal management scheme enables real-time and dynamic movement of virtual machines to promote uniform temperature distribution that reduces local hot spots, quickly responds to thermal emergencies, reduces energy consumption costs, reduces initial cooling system capital costs and improves equipment reliability.), deciding to migrate a workload from the affected server to a target server (Paragraph 11 “deploy and migrate computational workloads among physical machines within data centers. Movement and placement of virtual machines is automated and based on environmental conditions that are detected and/or exhibited in the data center. By way of example, such environmental conditions include, but are not limited to, dynamic information such as cooling, airflow, temperature, humidity, etc.”), the deciding comprising:
for each of a plurality of servers, sensing a performance metric, a temperature and a proximity from the thermal event, responsive to the sensed performance metric, the temperature and the proximity, computing a weighted score (Paragraph 59 “The cost function is represented by some aggregation of terms, where each term is multiplied by a weight factor. Generally, the cost function has the form: f=W.sub.1.times.t.sub.1+W.sub.2.times.t.sub.2+ . . . , where the t.sub.i terms (i=1 to N) represent corresponding criteria (N total criteria, where N is an integer) to be considered, and the w, parameters represent weights to be applied to the terms. As examples, the t.sub.i terms can represent resource loading criteria (n terms to correspond to the n dimensions of resources), balancing criteria, cooling criteria, power criteria, environmental criteria, and so forth. The weight to be multiplied to each term generally represents the importance of the corresponding term in computing the goodness rating for a particular layout of virtual machines.”).
Bash does not expressly disclose but Cencini discloses generating a ranking based on the weighted score of each of the plurality of servers (Paragraph 171 “In some cases, durations of time since the last signal was received may serve as a health score for each rack controller, and these health scores may be propagated through the management system 70 according to the illustrated topology, with a given rack controller reporting health scores for those below it, and advancing those health scores upward, while distributing health scores for those upward to those below. This is expected to scale better relative to systems that implement a fully connected graph, though embodiments are also consistent with this approach.”); and
selecting the target server from the plurality of servers according to the ranking (Paragraph 206 “In some cases, computing devices or nodes in the data centers may be ranked according to a score calculated based on values in the policy, and a highest ranking computing device or node thereon may be allocated next.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bash to include the teachings of Cencini because it provides for the purpose of ensuring that the most capable server is chosen for the next deployment. In this way, the combination benefits from the increased efficiency and speed at which the servers operate.
Bash does not expressly disclose but Van De Groenedaal discloses wherein the proximity from the thermal event is based on a spatial mapping of the data center (Paragraph 93 “the orchestrator server 920 may generate a map of heat generation in the data center 100 using telemetry data (e.g., temperatures, fan speeds, etc.) reported from the nodes 400 and allocate resources to managed nodes as a function of the map of heat generation and predicted heat generation associated with different workloads, to maintain a target temperature and heat distribution in the data center 100. Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments, the orchestrator server 920 may organize received telemetry data into a hierarchical model that is indicative of a relationship between the managed nodes (e.g., a spatial relationship such as the physical locations of the resources of the managed nodes within the data center 100 and/or a functional relationship, such as groupings of the managed nodes by the customers the managed nodes provide services for, the types of functions typically performed by the managed nodes, managed nodes that typically share or exchange workloads among each other, etc.). Based on differences in the physical locations and resources in the managed nodes, a given workload may exhibit different resource utilizations (e.g., cause a different internal temperature, use a different percentage of processor or memory capacity) across the resources of different managed nodes. The orchestrator server 920 may determine the differences based on the telemetry data stored in the hierarchical model and factor the differences into a prediction of future resource utilization of a workload if the workload is reassigned from one managed node to another managed node, to accurately balance resource utilization in the data center 100. In some embodiments, the orchestrator server 920 may identify patterns in resource utilization phases of the workloads and use the patterns to predict future resource utilization of the workloads.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bash as modified to include the teachings of Van De Groenedaal because it allows resource utilization patterns to be discovered by the heat signature created in the data center. This allows for better prediction of future resource utilization of the workloads.
As per claim 2, Bash further discloses wherein the weighted score is computed by comparing with a range of values (Paragraph 16).
As per claim 3, Bash further discloses wherein the thermal event comprises a cooling failure event (Paragraph 50 “cooling criteria (which specify temperatures in physical machines that should not be exceeded.”).
As per claim 4, Bash further discloses further comprising computing a risk assessment based on the weighted score (Paragraph 59).
As per claim 5, Van De Groenedaal further discloses wherein the proximity from the thermal event is further based on triangulation of the spatial mapping (Paragraph 93).
As per claim 6, Bash further discloses wherein the performance metric of each of a plurality of servers comprises application type (Paragraph 33).
As per claim 7, Bash further discloses wherein the performance metric of each of a plurality of servers comprises frequency of access (Paragraph 59).
As per claims 8-14, they are product claims having similar limitations as cited in claims 1-7 and are rejected under the same rationale.
As per claims 15-20, they are system claims having similar limitations as cited in claims 1-7 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 being rejected under 35 USC 101 are persuasive and the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 TIMOTHY A MUDRICK whose telephone number is (571)270-3374. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Central Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571)272-4215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIMOTHY A MUDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 6/29/2026
Prosecution Insights