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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-5, 10-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ljubuncic et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0162004) and Eiland et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0221916).
Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 16, Ljubuncic discloses a method (as well as a non-transitory machine-readable medium/memory having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations - paragraph 0010) for managing performance of workloads by hardware components housed in a chassis mounted on a rack system (paragraph 0013), the method comprising:
obtaining a request to perform a workload of the workloads (Figure 5, items 502 and 504, paragraphs 0012, 0025, 0036, and 0040-0041; i.e., if a particular computing device 102 [Figure 1] is unable to process a particular task or workload, it requests [equivalent to the claimed “request”] others of the computing devices 102 to perform that task/workload); and
in response to obtaining the request:
obtaining power risk assessments for power systems of the rack system (Figure 5, item 512, paragraphs 0026, 0031, 0037, and 0043; i.e., the current power resources are determined for the computing device 102 that has received the offload request; a determination that the particular computing device 102 has available power resources to handle another task being equivalent to the claimed “power risk assessments”);
obtaining a power consumption estimate for the workload (Figure 5, item 508, paragraphs 0026, 0036, 0040, and 0042; i.e., the offload request can either include the power requirements to execute the task, or the receiving computing node 102 can calculate the power requirements on its own);
making a determination regarding whether to accept the request based on the power risk assessments, the power consumption estimate, and acceptable risk criteria (Figure 5, item 514, paragraphs 0026, 0031, and 0043; i.e., the computing node 102 that receives the offload task request determines whether to accept it based on the offload task requirements [the claimed “power consumption estimate”], on the available power resources of the computing node 102 [the claimed “power risk assessments”], and whether power capacity exists to execute the offload task [equivalent to the claimed “acceptable risk criteria”]);
in a first instance of the determination where the request is accepted:
performing the workload using at least a portion of the hardware components (Figure 5, item 522, paragraph 0046); and
in a second instance of the determination where the request is not accepted:
rejecting the request (Figure 5, see No branch of decision block 514, paragraph 0043).
Ljubuncic does not expressly disclose a rail mounted power system; and
the chassis being a power supply free chassis that is configured without any power supplies within a body of the chassis and the hardware components being powered solely by one or more power supplies positioned external to the body of the power supply free chassis.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., computing racks in data centers), Eiland teaches a rail mounted power system (paragraph 0033); and
the chassis (Figure 4A, item 104A) being a power supply free chassis that is configured without any power supplies within a body of the chassis and the hardware components being powered solely by one or more power supplies positioned external to the body of the power supply free chassis (paragraph 0033).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Eiland’s teachings of computing racks in data centers with the teachings of Ljubuncic, for the purpose of reducing the heat buildup in the chassis, thereby resulting in a lower chance of component failure.
Regarding Claims 2, 11, and 17, Eiland teaches wherein the rack system is adapted for placement of the power supply free chassis in a high-density computing environment (paragraph 0004; i.e., a data center) comprising data processing systems, the rack system comprising:
a rack (Figure 5, item 303) for housing at least a portion of the data processing systems (Figure 5, item 100) and adapted to hold at least one chassis, and the rack comprising at least one vertical rail (paragraph 0033); and
a rail mounted power system adapted to mount directly to a single vertical rail of the at least one vertical rail (paragraph 0033).
Regarding Claims 3, 12, and 18, Eiland teaches wherein the rail mounted power system comprises:
a power distribution unit adapted to obtain rack system level power and distribute, using the rack system level power, power supply level power (paragraph 0029; i.e., although the reference does not expressly recite a power distribution unit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided one so that each of the plurality of power supplies would only need to have a single input to receive main line power 101 [Figure 3 - paragraph 0032] thereby reducing the footprint of the power system in the data center); and
at least one power supply 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 chassis, wherein the at least one power supply is one of the one or more power supplies positioned external to the body of the power supply free chassis (paragraph 0029; i.e., a power supply unit).
Regarding Claims 4, 13, and 19, Eiland teaches wherein the rack system further comprises the power supply free chassis (paragraph 0033).
Regarding Claims 5, 14, and 20, Eiland teaches wherein the power supply free chassis does not house any power components for converting power from the power supply level power to the logic level power, and wherein operation of the hardware components depends on obtaining power from the rail mounted power system (paragraphs 0032-0033; i.e., the power supply converts the power from the AC mains 101 into DC instead of having the power converted within the chassis).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ljubuncic and Eiland as applied to claims 5 and 14 above, and further in view of Gao (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0098147).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, Ljubuncic and Eiland do not expressly disclose wherein the rail mounted power system is further adapted to participate in provisioning of redundant power to the power supply free chassis in cooperation with at least one other rail mounted power system.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., computing racks in data centers), Gao teaches wherein the rail mounted power system is further adapted to participate in provisioning of redundant power to the power supply free chassis in cooperation with at least one other rail mounted power system (Figure 9, item 909, paragraphs 0020, 0027, and 0063).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Gao’s teachings of computing racks in data centers with the teachings of Ljubuncic and Eiland, for the purpose of allowing the devices in the chassis to continue to operate in the event of failure of the primary power supply.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ljubuncic and Eiland as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Katiyar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0066580).
Regarding Claim 7, Ljubuncic and Eiland do not expressly disclose prior to obtaining the request,
and for a rail mounted power system of the rail mounted power systems:
obtaining health information for the rail mounted power system;
obtaining a power connectivity map that indicates, at least, dependence of data processing systems of the rack system on the rail mounted power system for power; and
obtaining a power risk assessment of the power risk assessments for the rail mounted power system using the health information, the power connectivity map, and a risk assessment system.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., computing racks in data centers), Katiyar teaches prior to obtaining the request,
and for a rail mounted power system of the rail mounted power systems (Figure 2A, item 111):
obtaining health information for the rail mounted power system (Figure 2A, paragraph 0020; i.e., the current power usage of each socket 200 being equivalent to the claimed “health information”);
obtaining a power connectivity map that indicates, at least, dependence of data processing systems of the rack system on the rail mounted power system for power (paragraph 0019); and
obtaining a power risk assessment of the power risk assessments for the rail mounted power system using the health information, the power connectivity map, and a risk assessment system (paragraphs 0022-0023; i.e., a power cap as well as current power usage is determined for each socket 200; a power risk assessment is made to determine whether a particular workload WL [Figure 3A] should be executed on that device 112 or on another device 112 using a risk assessment system [i.e., whether execution of the workload WL will cause the socket 200 to overload]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Katiyar’s teachings of computing racks in data centers with the teachings of Ljubuncic and Eiland, for the purpose of allowing a user to know which power socket to plug the computing device in, thereby preventing any particular socket from being overloaded.
Regarding Claim 8, Katiyar teaches wherein the acceptable risk criteria require decreasing levels of power risk assessment as a level of power consumption increases for the workload to be accepted (paragraph 0027; i.e., the system will only allow up to 80% of the power available on the particular socket 200; as more and more workloads are transferred to that device 112 [the power consumption increases], it will result in “decreasing levels of power risk assessment” in that fewer workloads will be accepted).
Regarding Claim 9, Katiyar teaches wherein obtaining the power risk assessment comprises identifying, using a power connectivity map (paragraph 0019), a portion of the rail mounted power systems that impact an ability of the rail mounted power system to provide power (paragraphs 0026-0027; i.e., a current power usage is ascertained for each socket 200 and device 112; when one of these components exceeds its power cap, it can impact an ability of the rail mounted power system to provide power).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because each reference systems for enhancing workload performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
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 FAISAL M ZAMAN, ESQ. whose telephone number is (571)272-6495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm, alternate Fridays.
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 J. 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.
/FAISAL M ZAMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175