DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the application filed on 03/28/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 03/28/2024, 10/14/2025, 11/04/2025, and 04/03/2026 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 non-patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step 1:
The claims recite a process, system, apparatus, article of manufacture, and/or a nontransitory storage medium with instructions, each of which are proper statutory categories.
Step 2A (prong 1):
Claim 1 (representative of claims 10 and 16):
The claim limitations are grouped as shown immediately following:
A method for managing performance of workloads by hardware components housed in power supply free chassis of a rack system, the method comprising: (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
obtaining a workload request to perform a workload of the workloads; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
obtaining workload requirements for the workload based, at least in part, on a phase of a lifecycle of an inference model that must be used to perform the workload; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
performing, using the workload requirements and information regarding power available to data processing systems of the power supply free chassis, a scheduling process to identify a data processing system of the data processing systems to perform the workload; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
forwarding the workload request to a power manager of the data processing system to attempt to complete performance of the workload to provide desired computer implemented services. (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Additional dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20do not appear remedy the deficiency.
Step 2A (prong 2):
Claim 1 (representative of claims 10 and 20):
…hardware components housed in power supply free chassis of a rack system
…a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor
…a data processing system, comprising:
…a processor
…a memory
These remaining claim limitations are delineated as shown immediately preceding. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. There are no improvements to the functioning of a computer, other technology or technical field, a particular machine is not cited, nothing is transformed to a different state or thing, the abstract idea is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. The claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is generally linked to a particular field of use, in this case, marketing and advertising. Thus, these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and memory performing a generic computer function of processing and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component – MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, receiving data, evaluating data and distributing data are data gathering and data outputting, which has no effect on technology and does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
The claim limitations do not provide an Inventive Concept. The claim limitations do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the abstract idea because the additional elements of the system comprising a computer processor, computer readable storage medium with instructions, and a memory configured to store information, each recited at a high level of generality in a computer network which only perform the universal computer functions of accessing, receiving, storing, and processing data, transmitting and presenting information. Taking the elements both individually and as an ordered combination, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely orthodox. Using a computer to obtain and display data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. As shown, the individual limitations claimed are some of the most rudimentary functions of a computer. The technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. In summary, the individual step and/or component does no more than require a general computer to perform standard computer functions. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer devices amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
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 of this title, 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 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian et al. (USPGP 2020/0104184 A1), hereinafter SUBRAMANIAN, in view of Rapaka et al. (USPGP 2022/0261064 A1), hereinafter RAPAKA.
Claims 1, 10, 16:
SUBRAMANIAN as shown below discloses the following limitations:
A method for managing performance of workloads by hardware components housed in power supply free chassis of a rack system, the method comprising: (see at least paragraphs 0012, 0021, 0025, 0029)
obtaining a workload request to perform a workload of the workloads; (see at least paragraphs 0012, 0021, 0025, 0029, 0033)
obtaining workload requirements for the workload based, at least in part, on a phase of a lifecycle of an inference model that must be used to perform the workload; (see at least paragraphs 0012, 0021, 0025, 0029, 0033)
performing, using the workload requirements and information regarding power available to data processing systems of the power supply free chassis, a scheduling process to identify a data processing system of the data processing systems to perform the workload; (see at least paragraphs 0027, 0028, 0025, 0029)
forwarding the workload request to a power manager of the data processing system to attempt to complete performance of the workload to provide desired computer implemented services. (see at least paragraphs 0027, 0028, 0025, 0029)
SUBRAMANIAN does not specifically disclose a power-supply free rack and chassis system. However, RAPAKA, in at least paragraphs 0007, 0014 and , Figure 1B as well as associated and related text does. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of SUBRAMANIAN with the technique of RAPAKA because, “…particularly with AI applications, workloads may greatly vary in processor-based systems in data centers. Not all processor-based systems may need the same amount of power to process a given workload and at a given operating frequency to achieve a desired performance Some processor-based systems may be executing less intense workloads that can be executed at lower operating frequencies, and thus a lower performance level, under its power budget. Other processor-based systems may be executing workloads that would require additional power outside of its power budget to operate at a higher operating frequency to perform at the desired performance. In addition, there can be sudden changes in the data center power availability, such as uninterruptable power supply (UPS) changes, that can impact power distribution to the processor-based systems and thus the CPU performance in the processor-based systems. These issues can impact the performance level of applications executed by the processor-based systems in the data center. This can then impact user experiences of such applications. Thus, in data centers, power is becoming one of the chief drivers of total cost of ownership.” (RAPAKA: paragraph 0005). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 2-5, 11-13, 17, 18:
The combination of SUBRAMANIAN/RAPAKA discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SUBRAMANIAN further discloses the following limitations:
wherein obtaining the workload requirements comprises:
identifying characteristics of the workload based on the request;
obtaining power estimation data that associates different characteristics of the workload with different levels of power consumption;
performing, using the power estimation data and the characteristics of the workload, a power estimation process to obtain the workload requirements.
wherein performing the scheduling process comprises:
identifying, using the workload requirements and an available power repository in which the information regarding where the power available to the data processing systems is stored, at least one data processing system of the data processing systems for which a minimum window of available power that meets the workload requirements is associated;
identifying, based on placement criteria, the data processing system of the at least one data processing system.
wherein the available power repository specifies, for the data processing system and as a function of time into the future, a quantity of available power over a period of time into the future.
wherein the quantity of available power over the period of time into the future is based, at least in part, on other workload requests that have been accepted by the data processing system for performance.
See at least paragraphs 0012, 0013, 0025, 0048; Figure 2 as well as associated and related text.
Claims 6-8, 14, 19, 20:
The combination of SUBRAMANIAN/RAPAKA discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SUBRAMANIAN further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the workload requirements are also obtained, based at least in part on:
a type of inference model that will be used during a future performance of the workload;
a quantity of data that will be used during the future performance of the workload;
a size of the inference model.
wherein the data is one selected from a list of data consisting of training data, update data, and input data usable by the inference model to generate an inference.
wherein the size of the inference model is based on a number of parameters of the inference model that are established during training of the inference model.
See at least paragraphs 0017, 0024, 0025, 0028, 0047-0048; Figure 5 as well as associated and related text.
Claims 9, 15:
The combination of SUBRAMANIAN/RAPAKA discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. SUBRAMANIAN further discloses the following limitations:
obtaining, by the power manager of the data processing system, the forwarded workload request;
performing, by the power manager, an acceptance evaluation process for the forwarded workload request based, at least in part, on responsibilities and health of rack mounted power systems that supply power to the data processing system;
in an instance of the performance of the acceptance evaluation process where the forwarded workload request is accepted:
scheduling, by the power manager, servicing of the forwarded workload request by the data processing system.
See at least paragraphs 0012, 0013, 0017, 0022, 0025, 0048; Figure 2 as well as associated and related text.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature:
Joe Skorjanec. “Optimizing Rack Power Distribution.” (January 2014). Retrieved online 06/18/2026. Optimizing rack power distribution
CISCO. “Power Management in the Cisco Unified Computing System: An Integrated Approach.” (2011). Retrieved online 06/18/2026. Microsoft Word - white_paper_c11-627731.docpdf
Luca Benini et al. “A Survey of Design Techniques for System-Level Dynamic Power Management.” (2002). Retrieved online 06/18/2026. Power Manager - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Foreign Art:
QIU Z. “Method For Distributing A Data Center Resource In A Cloud Computing Platform, Involves Monitoring The Operating Status Of The Data Center In A Cloud Computing Environment, And Collecting Historical Resource Usage Status Data.” (CN 112380006 A)
WANG XUEQING et al. “Resource Allocation And Acquisition Method And Device For Multiple Types Of Service Applications.” (CN 114500405 A)
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)
Prosecution Insights