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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Interpretation
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. See MPEP 2111.04(II). "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016).
As a courtesy to Applicant, and in the interests of expediting prosecution, alternative rejections considering the contingent limitations as required have been included.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “power distribution unit” in Claim 1, 2, 11, 12, and 17 and “data processing systems” in Claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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) 1-9, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0132842 to Brey et al. (“Brey”) and US Patent Application Publication Number 20210373633 to Maillot et al. (“Maillot”).
In reference to Claim 1, Brey discloses a method for managing performance of workloads by hardware components housed in a plurality of power supply free chassis (See Figure 1 Numbers 107-117 and Paragraphs 13, 15, and 26 [computers are supplied with power from an external supply via the PDU, and no internal power supply is disclosed]) of a rack system (See Figure 1 Number 118 and Paragraph 12), the method comprising: obtaining an aggregate power draw of power feeds (See Figure 1 Number 222, Figure 3 Number 302, and Paragraphs 12, 16-18, and 27) of a rail mounted power system (See Figure 1 and Paragraphs 12-13); identifying a maximum power output of a power distribution unit (See Figure 1 Number 120, Figure 3 Number 310, Figure 4 Numbers 310 and 406, and Paragraphs 13, 28, and 34 [power objectives take into account maximum power that can be delivered, and threshold can be equivalent to maximum power that can be delivered]) of the rail mounted power system (See Figure 1 and Paragraphs 12-13), the power distribution unit being adapted to receive power directly from a power source that powers the rail mounted power system and to distribute and provide the power directly to each of the power feeds (See Figures 1 and 3 and Paragraph 15); and making a determination, based on the maximum power output and the aggregate power draw, regarding whether the aggregate power draw exceeds the maximum power output (See Figure 3 Number 306 and Paragraph 28); and in a first instance of the determination where the maximum power output is exceeded: ranking, with regard to one another and based on priority rankings, each of the plurality of power supply free chassis that draws power from any of the power supplies to obtain a rank ordering of the plurality of power supply free chassis (See Paragraphs 13, 30, and 33); identifying, based on the rank ordering, a lowest ranked one of the plurality of power supply free chassis (See Figure 3 Numbers 308 and 312 and Paragraphs 13, 29-30, and 33); and throttling the lowest ranked one of the plurality of power supply free chassis to prevent the maximum power output from being exceeded to provide computer implemented services using a portion of the plurality of power supply free chassis (See Figure 3 Number 314 and Paragraphs 13, 31, and 33); and in a second instance of the determination where the maximum power output is not exceeded: providing the computer implemented services using all of the plurality of power supply free chassis (See Paragraph 29). However, Brey is silent as to the structure of the PDU and separate power feeds for each of the plurality of power supply free chassis, and does not explicitly disclose the use of separate power supplies in the separate power feeds for each of the plurality of power supply free chassis. Maillot discloses a system comprising a power distribution unit (See Figures 1, 2, and 3A Number 110 and Paragraph 82) adapted to receive power directly from a power source that powers the system (See Paragraph 82) and to distribute and provide the power directly to each one of a plurality of power supplies that are each part of a separate power feed of a plurality of power feeds (See Figure 3A Number 310 and Paragraph 91), wherein each separate power feed is associated with a separate one of a plurality of power supply free servers (See Figure 3A Numbers 130 and Paragraph 91).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the PDU and power feeds of Brey using the PDU and power feeds of Maillot, resulting in the invention of Claim 1, because Brey is silent as to the particular structure of the PDU and power feeds, and the simple substitution of the PDU and power feeds of Maillot as the PDU and power feeds of Brey would have yielded the predictable result of allowing for the use of servers that require receiving power at more than one voltage, and because ATX has become a de facto industry standard for power servers (See Paragraph 91 of Maillot).
It is noted that Claim 1 is a method claim which recites contingent limitations. As indicated above, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed by the prior art.
In reference to Claim 2, Brey and Maillot disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Brey further discloses that the aggregate power draw is an instantaneous power demand on the power distribution unit from the power supplies (See Paragraphs 17-18 and 27).
In reference to Claim 3, Brey and Maillot disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Brey further discloses that a priority ranking of the priority rankings is based on, at least: workloads being performed by the plurality of power supply free chassis (See Paragraphs 13 and 30 [applications running on the computing device]); types of the workloads (See Paragraph 30 [kind of application running on the computing device]); lifecycle phases of the workloads of at least one of the types of the workloads (See Paragraphs 13 and 30 [tasks of an executing application currently running and actual computations currently being carried out by a computing device]); and a scoring system usable to quantify a cost for reperforming the workloads.
It is noted that Claim 3 is a method claim which recites further limitations of a contingent step. As indicated above, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed by the prior art.
In reference to Claim 4, Brey and Maillot disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 3 above. Brey further discloses that the scoring system comprises associations between different types of the lifecycle phases and different numbers of point values (See Paragraphs 13 and 30).
It is noted that Claim 4 is a method claim which recites further limitations of a contingent step. As indicated above, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed by the prior art.
In reference to Claim 5, Brey and Maillot disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 4 above. Brey further discloses that the point values are based on computation costs for performing workloads in the different types of the lifecycle phases (See Paragraph 30).
It is noted that Claim 5 is a method claim which recites further limitations of a contingent step. As indicated above, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed by the prior art.
In reference to Claim 6, Brey and Maillot disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 3 above. Brey further discloses that the workloads can be any workload type (See Paragraphs 19 and 30); wherein the at least one of the types of the workloads is an artificial intelligence workload type.
It is noted that Claim 6 is a method claim which recites further limitations of a contingent step. As indicated above, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed by the prior art.
In reference to Claim 7, Brey and Maillot disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 6 above. Brey further discloses that the lifecycle phases are one of an enumerated number of phases of artificial intelligence workloads.
It is noted that Claim 7 is a method claim which recites further limitations of a contingent step. As indicated above, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed by the prior art.
In reference to Claim 8, Brey and Maillot disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 7 above. Brey further discloses that the enumerated number of phases comprises: a training phase; an inferencing phase; and an updating phase.
It is noted that Claim 8 is a method claim which recites further limitations of a contingent step. As indicated above, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed by the prior art.
In reference to Claim 9, Brey and Maillot disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 8 above. Brey further discloses that ranking each of the plurality of power supply free chassis comprises: obtaining a roster of available chassis (See Paragraphs 13-14); obtaining priority ranking (See Paragraphs 29-30); and ordering the plurality of power supply free chassis based on point values for each chassis using the priority ranking to obtain the rank ordering (See Paragraphs 29-30).
It is noted that Claim 9 is a method claim which recites further limitations of a contingent step. As indicated above, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed by the prior art.
Claims 12 and 17 recite limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 1 and are rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim(s) 3-5, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brey and Maillot as applied to Claims 1, 12, and 17 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0127921 to Zhu et al. (“Zhu”).
Alternatively, in reference to Claim 3, Brey and Maillot disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Brey further discloses that a priority ranking of the priority rankings is based on, at least: workloads being performed by the plurality of power supply free chassis (See Paragraphs 13 and 30 [applications running on the computing device]); types of the workloads (See Paragraph 30 [kind of application running on the computing device]); and lifecycle phases of the workloads of at least one of the types of the workloads (See Paragraphs 13 and 30 [tasks of an executing application currently running and actual computations currently being carried out by a computing device]). Brey further discloses that the priority rankings can be based on any condition (See Paragraphs 13 and 30) and that selection of computing devices for throttling is done so as to have the least effect on the computational ability of the rack (See Paragraph 29). However, Brey and Maillot disclose do not explicitly disclose that the priority rankings is based on a scoring system usable to quantify a cost for reperforming the workloads. Zhu discloses assigning a priority score based on the cost to reperform (restart) a workload (See Paragraph 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Brey and Maillot using the reperformance cost score for priority determination of Zhu, resulting in the invention of Claim 3, because Brey is not limited as to the conditions that the priority rankings are based on (See Paragraphs 13 and 30 of Brey), and the simple substitution of the reperformance cost score for priority determination of Zhu as one of the conditions for determining the priority rankings of Brey would have yielded the predictable result of allowing dynamic selection for throttling based on priority (See Paragraph 30 of Brey) and preventing the need to reperform a great deal of work that would delay functioning of the workload, thus minimizing the effect on the computational ability (See Paragraph 28 of Zhu).
It is noted that Claim 3 is a method claim which recites further limitations of a contingent step. As indicated above, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed by the prior art.
Alternatively, in reference to Claim 4, Brey, Maillot, and Zhu disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 3 above. Brey further discloses that the scoring system comprises associations between different types of the lifecycle phases and different numbers of point values (See Paragraphs 13 and 30).
It is noted that Claim 4 is a method claim which recites further limitations of a contingent step. As indicated above, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed by the prior art.
Alternatively, in reference to Claim 5, Brey, Maillot, and Zhu disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 4 above. Brey further discloses that the point values are based on computation costs for performing workloads in the different types of the lifecycle phases (See Paragraph 30).
It is noted that Claim 5 is a method claim which recites further limitations of a contingent step. As indicated above, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed by the prior art.
Claims 13 and 18 recite limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 3 and are rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim(s) 6-9, 14-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brey, Maillot, and Zhu as applied to Claims 3, 13, and 18 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 2025/0111156 to Teymoori et al. (“Teymoori”).
Alternatively, in reference to Claim 6, Brey, Maillot, and Zhu disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 3 above. Brey further discloses that the workloads can be any workload type (See Paragraphs 19 and 30). However, Brey, Maillot, and Zhu do not explicitly disclose that the at least one of the types of the workloads is an artificial intelligence workload type. Teymoori discloses a server based system having an artificial intelligence workload type (See Paragraphs 2-5 and 76-80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Brey, Maillot, and Zhu using the artificial intelligence workload type of Teymoori, resulting in the invention of Claim 6, because Brey is not limited as to the particular workload types (See Paragraphs 19 and 30 of Brey), and the simple substitution of the artificial intelligence workload type as the workload type of Brey and Zhu would have yielded the predictable result of increasing the comprehensibility of computer outputs to humans, as the use of AI models for natural language processing has become the main focus of the industry (See Paragraphs 2-4 of Teymoori).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the artificial intelligence system of Teymoori using the prioritized throttling of Brey, Maillot, and Zhu, resulting in the invention of Claim 6, because Brey is not limited as to the particular workload types (See Paragraphs 19 and 30 of Brey), and the use of the prioritized throttling of Brey and Zhu in the artificial intelligence system of Teymoori would have yielded the predictable result of managing power consumption in the system, which is a significant expense (See Paragraphs 4-5 and 17 of Brey).
It is noted that Claim 6 is a method claim which recites further limitations of a contingent step. As indicated above, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed by the prior art.
Alternatively, in reference to Claim 7, Brey, Maillot, Zhu, and Teymoori disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 6 above. Teymoori further discloses that the lifecycle phases are one of an enumerated number of phases of artificial intelligence workloads (See Paragraphs 76-80).
It is noted that Claim 7 is a method claim which recites further limitations of a contingent step. As indicated above, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed by the prior art.
Alternatively, in reference to Claim 8, Brey, Maillot, Zhu, and Teymoori disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 7 above. Teymoori further discloses that the enumerated number of phases comprises: a training phase (See Paragraphs 76-77); an inferencing phase (See Paragraphs 76 and 78); and an updating phase (See Paragraphs 76 and 80).
It is noted that Claim 8 is a method claim which recites further limitations of a contingent step. As indicated above, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed by the prior art.
Alternatively, in reference to Claim 9, Brey, Maillot, Zhu, and Teymoori disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 8 above. Brey further discloses that ranking each of the plurality of power supply free chassis comprises: obtaining a roster of available chassis (See Paragraphs 13-14); obtaining priority ranking (See Paragraphs 29-30); and ordering the plurality of power supply free chassis based on point values for each chassis using the priority ranking to obtain the rank ordering (See Paragraphs 29-30).
It is noted that Claim 9 is a method claim which recites further limitations of a contingent step. As indicated above, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed by the prior art.
Claims 14 and 19 recite limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 7 and are rejected under similar reasoning.
Claims 15 and 20 recite limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 8 and are rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 16 recites limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 9 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brey and Maillot as applied to Claims 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0118886 to Ehlen et al. (“Ehlen”).
In reference to Claim 10, Brey discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Brey further discloses that the rack system is adapted for placement of the plurality of power supply free chassis in a computing environment comprising a plurality of data processing systems (See Figure 1 and Paragraphs 12-14), the rack system comprising: a rack for housing at least a portion of the plurality of data processing systems and adapted to hold at least one of the plurality of power supply free chassis (See Figure 1 Number 118 and Paragraph 12), and the rack comprising at least one vertical rail (See Figure 1); and the rail mounted power system (See Figure 1 and Paragraphs 12-13). However, Brey does not explicitly disclose that the rail mounted power system is mounted directly to a single vertical rail of the at least one vertical rail. Ehlen discloses a rack system (See Figure 1A Number 100A and Paragraphs 17 and 20) adapted for placement of a plurality of power supply free chassis (See Figure 1A Number 112 and Paragraphs 17-19 [computing device chassis may, but need not, include a power supply]) in a computing environment comprising a plurality of data processing systems (See Paragraph 19), the rack system comprising: a rack for housing at least a portion of the plurality of data processing systems and adapted to hold at least one of the plurality of power supply free chassis (See Figure 1A Number 100A and Paragraphs 17-20), and the rack comprising at least one vertical rail (See Figure 1A Number 104 and Paragraphs 15-16, 18, and Claim 1); and the rail mounted power system wherein the rail mounted power system is mounted directly to a single vertical rail of the at least one vertical rail (See Figure 1A Number 102 and Paragraph 18); the rail mounted power system including a PDU and power supplies (See Paragraph 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Brey and Maillot using the single vertical rail mounting for mounting the rail mounted power system of Ehlen, resulting in the invention of Claim 10, in order to yield the predictable result of allowing the rail mounted power system including the PDU and power supplies to be mounted inside of the rack structure, thus increasing the space inside of the rack in which computing assets may be mounted and preventing protrusion from the rack since the rail mounted power system does not occupy space exterior to the rack or space enclosed by the rack (See Paragraph 3 of Ehlen).
In reference to Claim 11, Brey, Maillot, and Ehlen disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 10 above. Brey further discloses that the power distribution unit is adapted to obtain rack system level power directly from the power source (See Paragraph 15) and to distribute and provide power supply level power to the power feeds using the rack system level power (See Figure 1 Number 120 and Paragraph 15); and each of the power feeds is adapted to obtain a portion of the power supply level power and distribute, using the power supply level power, logic level power to the at least one of the plurality of power supply free chassis (See Paragraph 15). Maillot further discloses that the power distribution unit is adapted to obtain rack system level power directly from the power source (See Paragraph 82) and to distribute and provide power supply level power to the power supplies using the rack system level power (See Paragraph 91); and each of the power supplies is adapted to obtain a portion of the power supply level power and distribute, using the power supply level power, logic level power to the at least one of the plurality of power supply free chassis (See Paragraph 91). Ehlen further discloses that he power distribution unit is adapted to obtain rack system level power directly from the power source (See Paragraph 18) and to distribute and provide power supply level power to the power feeds using the rack system level power (See Figure 1A Number 102 and Paragraph 18); and each of the power feeds is adapted to obtain a portion of the power supply level power and distribute, using the power supply level power, logic level power to the at least one of the plurality of power supply free chassis (See Paragraph 18).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4 November 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1-20 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.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 THOMAS J CLEARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Andrew Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. 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.
/THOMAS J. CLEARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175