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 1-30 are pending.
Examiner decided to withdraw 112 rejection because applicant’s amendment to the claims overcome the rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments on page XXX applicants argue “Computing devices interconnected to perform one or more computing tasks, neither of the cited references discloses or suggests a set of computing devices interconnected to perform one or more computing tasks that are instructed to change their collective operation power as claimed”. Examiner respectfully disagree because Zhao paragraph 0017 teaches “one or more centralized computing systems; a communications network; a plurality of generator node controllers, where each generator node controller in the plurality of generator node controllers contains: a generator network interface; a generator node processor; and a generator memory containing: a frequency control application; and a plurality of generator node operating parameters describing the operating parameters of a generator node in a power distribution network” and paragraph 0049 “a variety of power distribution networks including node controllers may be utilized to perform power distribution as appropriate to the requirements of specific applications in accordance with embodiments of the invention. Nodes utilizing node controllers connected to a communication network” (see paragraph 004-0051 and FIG. 2-3).
As neither Zhao nor Pfeiffer disclose this feature, it is submitted that the claims are non- obvious over these references. Examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the differences between the prior art and the claims in issue have been set forth. The level of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to be a person who is presumed to be aware of all prior art, specifically relating to control. The rejection is based on what was known prior to the time the Applicant created the invention and rest on a factual basis, and supported by the motivation as noted in the above office action. Under such considerations, the prior art teaches the claims as written.
Frequency reader configured to read an operation frequency during an adjustment interval, neither of the cited references discloses or suggests a frequency reader configured to read an operation frequency of an electricity grid during an adjustment interval as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagree because Pfeiffer paragraph 0016 “grid frequency change is detected by the data collection unit 30 of the energy management system 35 for example, based on grid frequency drop/increase detection, utility supply signals, utility change requests, demand response requests etc. The data center can also detect outages and exception cases where a data center is required to run off of a generator” and FIG. 2.
Site server configured to determine a frequency difference, neither of the cited references discloses or suggests a site server configured to determine a frequency difference between the operation frequency and a reference operation frequency as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagree because paragraph 0016-007 frequency change in paragraph 0016 is the difference between the last measured frequency and the previous frequency measure.
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) 1-2, 15-16 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. USPGPUB 2016/0036225 (hereinafter “Zhao”) in view of Pfeiffer et al. 20130054987 A1(hereinafter “Pfeiffer”).
As to claim 1, Zhao teaches an electric load network for adjusting an operation frequency of an electricity grid in real time, the electric load network (FIG. 1 and paragraph 0046) comprising: a set of computing devices interconnected to perform one or more computing tasks, the set of computing devices being configured to electrically connect to the electricity grid to be powered by the electricity grid in order to perform the one or more computing tasks at a collective operation power (paragraph 004-0051 and FIG. 2-3 “a variety of power distribution networks including node controllers may be utilized to perform power distribution as appropriate to the requirements of specific applications in accordance with embodiments of the invention. Nodes utilizing node controllers connected to a communication network in accordance with various embodiments of the invention are discussed further below”).
Zhao does not explicitly teach a site server that is connected to the set of computing devices; a frequency reader that is connected to the site server, the frequency reader being configured to read from the electricity grid the operation frequency of the electricity grid during an adjustment interval; wherein the site server is configured to obtain from the frequency reader the operation frequency of the electricity grid during the adjustment interval; determine a frequency difference between the operation frequency and a reference operation frequency; and instruct the set of computing devices to change the collective operation power of the set of computing devices based on the frequency difference to adjust the operation frequency of the electricity grid.
However, Pfeiffer teaches a site server that is connected to the set of computing devices (paragraph 0014 “FIG. 5, the data center energy management system 35 may be one or more server computers or other IT equipment like storage or network equipment (running in the data center for example or in a different location) that execute a plurality of lines of computer code. The data center energy management system 35 may also be implemented in hardware. The data center energy management system 35 may have a power and energy consumption data collection”); a frequency reader that is connected to the site server, the frequency reader being configured to read from the electricity grid the operation frequency of the electricity grid during an adjustment interval (paragraph 0016 and FIG. 2 “grid frequency change is detected by the data collection unit 30 of the energy management system”); wherein the site server is configured to obtain from the frequency reader the operation frequency of the electricity grid during the adjustment interval (paragraph 0015-0016 and FIG. 2 element 132 “frequency change is detected (132)”); determine a frequency difference between the operation frequency and a reference operation frequency (paragraph 0016-0017 frequency change is the difference between the last measured frequency and the previous frequency measure); and instruct the set of computing devices to change the collective operation power of the set of computing devices based on the frequency difference to adjust the operation frequency of the electricity grid (paragraph 0016 and Fig. 2 element 134 “the power consumption of the servers in the data center is adjusted so as to adjust the frequency).
Zhao and Pfeiffer are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to energy management system.
Therefore at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above energy management system, as taught by Zhao, and incorporating collective operation power of the set of computing devices based on the frequency difference to adjust the operation frequency of the electricity grid, as taught by Pfeiffer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve monitoring, controlling of frequency response mode (also called frequency control mode, or automatic generation control (AGC) mode), altering their output continuously to help keep the frequency near the required value, as suggested by Pfeiffer (paragraph 0003).
As to claims 2, the combination of Zhao and Pfeiffer teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Pfeiffer further teaches wherein each of set of the computing devices includes a set of chips operating at a chipset power, and the site server is further configured to instruct at least one of the set of computing devices to operate at a different chipset power in order to change the collective operation power of the set of computing devices (paragraph 0016 and FIG. 2 “dynamically increased and if monitored and adjusted on real-time, such power consumption can be set by forcing specific load onto such servers and IT equipment ("forced load") as shown in FIG. 4 for example”).
As to claim 15, is related to claim 1 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 16, is related to claim 2 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 29, is related to claim 1 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 30, is related to claim 1 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
Claim(s) 3-12 and 17-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. USPGPUB 2016/0036225 (hereinafter “Zhao”) in view of Pfeiffer et al. 20130054987 A1(hereinafter “Zhao”) further in view of Guide to Ancillary Services in the National Electricity Market dated April 2015 (hereinafter “AEMO”).
As to claim 3, the combination of Zhao and Pfeiffer teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the site server is further configured to change the collective operation power of the set of computing devices by a load change limit at most.
However, AEMO teaches wherein the site server is further configured to change the collective operation power of the set of computing devices by a load change limit at most (page 6 and Fig. 2, 7 regulation frequency control “lower frequency 49.85 Hz and upper frequency 50.15 Hz).
Zhao, Pfeiffer and AEMO are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to energy management system.
Therefore at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above energy management system, as taught by Zhao and Pfeiffer, and incorporating collective operation power of the set of computing devices by a load change limit at most, as taught by AEMO.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve monitoring, controlling of frequency response mode (also called frequency control mode, or automatic generation control (AGC) mode), altering their output continuously to help keep the frequency near the required value, as suggested by Pfeiffer (paragraph 0003).
As to claim 4, the combination of Zhao, Pfeiffer and AEMO teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
AEMO further teaches wherein the reference operation frequency is a minimum operation frequency allowed in the electricity grid, and the site server is further configured to determine the frequency difference as a percentage difference that the operation frequency of the electricity grid during the adjustment interval is below the minimum operation frequency (FIG. 2 and 7); determine a below proportion of the percentage difference to a maximal below percentage; and determine the below proportion times the load change limit to be a power reduction value (FIG. 7 and page 10).
As to claim 5, the combination of Zhao, Pfeiffer and AEMO teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
However, Pfeiffer further teaches wherein the site server is further configured to instruct each of the set of computing devices to reduce the chipset power of each of the set of computing devices in order to reduce the collective operation power of the set of computing devices by the power reduction value (paragraph 0015-0016).
As to claim 6, the combination of Zhao, Pfeiffer and AEMO teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Pfeiffer further teaches wherein the site server is further configured to determine a chipset reduction proportion of the power reduction value to a collective chipset power of the set of computing devices; and instruct each of the set of computing devices to reduce the chipset power of each of the set of computing devices by the chipset reduction proportion (paragraph 0016-0018).
As to claim 7, the combination of Zhao, Pfeiffer and AEMO teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
However, AEMO further teaches wherein the site server is further configured to instruct a subset of the set of computing devices to reduce the chipset power of each of those computing devices in order to reduce a collective chipset power of the set of computing devices by the power reduction value (page 10-12).
As to claim 8, the combination of Zhao, Pfeiffer and AEMO teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Pfeiffer further teaches wherein the reference operation frequency is a maximum operation frequency allowed in the electricity grid, and the site server is further configured to determine the frequency difference as a percentage difference that the operation frequency of the electricity grid during the adjustment interval is above the maximum operation frequency (paragraph 0014-0016); determine a above proportion of the percentage difference to a maximal above percentage; and determine the above proportion times the load change limit to be a power increase value (paragraph 0016-0017 and Fig. 2).
As to claim 9, the combination of Zhao, Pfeiffer and AEMO teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Pfeiffer further teaches wherein the site server is further configured to instruct each of the set of computing devices to increase the chipset power of each of the set of computing devices in order to increase the collective operation power of the set of computing devices by the power increase value (paragraph 0016 and FIG. 2).
As to claim 10, the combination of Zhao, Pfeiffer and AEMO teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
AEMO further teaches wherein the site server is further configured to determine a chipset increase proportion of the power increase value to a collective chipset power of the set of computing devices; and instruct each of the set of computing devices to increase the chipset power of each of the set of computing devices by the chipset increase proportion (Fig. 2 and 7 and pages 6-11).
As to claim 11, the combination of Zhao, Pfeiffer and AEMO teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
AEMO further teaches wherein the site server is further configured to instruct a subset of the set of computing devices to increase the chipset power of each of those computing devices in order to increase a collective chipset power of the set of computing devices by the power increase value (page 6 and page 10-11 and Fig. 2, 7).
As to claim 17, is related to claim 3 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 18, is related to claim 4 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 19, is related to claim 5 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 20, is related to claim 6 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 21, is related to claim 7 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 22, is related to claim 8 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 23, is related to claim 9 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 24, is related to claim 10 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 25, is related to claim 11 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
Claim(s) 13 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. USPGPUB 2016/0036225 (hereinafter “Zhao”) in view of Pfeiffer et al. 20130054987 A1(hereinafter “Zhao”) further in view of McNamara et al. USPGPUB 20210036547 A1 (hereinafter “McNamara”).
As to claims 13 and 27, the combination of Zhao and Pfeiffer teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more computing tasks comprise proof of work.
However, McNamara teaches wherein the one or more computing tasks comprise proof of work (paragraph 0172).
Zhao, Pfeiffer and McNamara are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to energy management system.
Therefore at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above energy management system, as taught by Zhao and Pfeiffer, and incorporating collective operation power of the set of computing devices by a load change limit at most, as taught by McNamara.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve monitoring, controlling of frequency response mode (also called frequency control mode, or automatic generation control (AGC) mode), altering their output continuously to help keep the frequency near the required value, as suggested by Pfeiffer (paragraph 0003).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 14, 26 and 28 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.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and listed on the attached PTO Form 892 but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Donahue et al USPGPUB 2021/0006073 teaches a system comprises a secondary energy source and a power controller. The secondary energy source is associated with the micro grid, and the secondary energy source is configured to generate first DC power signal. The power controller is in communication with the secondary energy source and an electric grid, and configured to receive first AC power signal from the electric grid and the first DC power signal from the secondary energy source and to output a second AC power signal to loads in communication with the power controller. The power controller comprises a frequency converter configured to change frequency of the second AC power signal, a processor, and a memory configured to store instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to control the frequency converter to change the frequency of the second AC power signal.
BERNTSEN et al. USPGPUB 20190305346 teaches a method for addressing electrical grid frequency changes by a fuel cell system includes measuring, by a frequency sensor, a frequency of an electrical grid, determining that the frequency of the electrical grid differs from a normal frequency of the electrical grid by a threshold, determining, based at least in part on the measured frequency, an AC power setpoint bias, applying a magnitude limit, a rate-of-change limit, and a duration limit to the determined AC power setpoint bias to generate a limited power setpoint bias, generating a frequency adjusted power setpoint based on the limited power setpoint bias, and providing the frequency adjusted power setpoint to one or more control modules of the fuel cell system such that the fuel cell system adjusts a power output based on a difference between the measured frequency and the normal frequency.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL KARIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571 272 4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights