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 § 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.
the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 1, the claim recites a method, therefore is a process.
“ . . . developing, at the scheduler, a workload distribution plan based on information related to applications waiting to be executed and the sensor data received from the compute resources; and assigning the applications to the compute resources according to the workload distribution plan “ These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
“sending instructions from a scheduler directly to a plurality of compute resources to obtain sensor data from the plurality of compute resources . . . receiving the sensor data directly from the compute resources “ amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed above, “sending instructions from a scheduler directly to a plurality of compute resources to obtain sensor data from the plurality of compute resources . . . receiving the sensor data directly from the compute resources “ amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 2, “ sending . . . resources” amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 3, “sending . . . collecting . . . sending . . . sending “ amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 4, “sending the instructions to a plurality of shims, each shim being associated with one of the compute resources” amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 5, “receiving aggregated sensor data” amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 6, “sending a fire-and-forget instruction” amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 7, “controlling thermal management of the compute resources based on the sensor data . . . “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Arlitt. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 8, “developing a plan based on carbon emission intensity considerations” These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
As per claim 9, “setting operational parameters of the compute resources by the scheduler when developing the workload distribution plan, the operational parameters being determined by the scheduler based on the sensor data” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Neog. The claim is ineligible.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapinos et al (US 2025/0307023) (hereinafter Kapinos) in view of Lei et al (US 2020/0192723) (hereinafter Lei) .
As per claim 1, Kapinos teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
sending instructions from a scheduler directly to a plurality of compute resources to obtain sensor data from the plurality of compute resources (Kapinos, Abstract—under BRI, sending instructions can be a sensor data request from an application);
receiving the sensor data directly from the compute resources (Kapinos , Abstract—under BRI, receiving the sensor data can be sourcing uncooked data to meet the sensor data request);
Kapinos does not expressly teach:
developing, at the scheduler, a workload distribution plan based on information related to applications waiting to be executed and the sensor data received from the compute resources; and
assigning the applications to the compute resources according to the workload distribution plan.
However, Lei discloses:
developing, at the scheduler, a workload distribution plan based on information related to applications waiting to be executed and the sensor data received from the compute resources (Lei, [0088]—under BRI, information related to applications can be the identity of application [combine vs uncombined] and sensor data can be utilization); and
assigning the applications to the compute resources according to the workload distribution plan (Lei, [0094]—under BRI, assigning the applications can be one acceleration resource corresponds to only one acceleration application).
Both Lei and Kapinos pertain to the art of workload assignment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Lei’s method to assign workloads because it is well-known in the art that running your workloads on remote servers delivers unmatched agility, cost efficiency, and global reach. You can instantly scale resources, significantly lower total cost of ownership (TCO) through pay-as-you-go pricing, and leverage purpose-built infrastructure for superior price-performance.
As per claim 4, Kapinos/Lei teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), wherein sending instructions from the scheduler directly to the plurality of compute resources comprises sending the instructions to a plurality of shims, each shim being associated with one of the compute resources (Kapinos, Abstract).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapinos/Lei as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art ( Background, Spec) (hereinafter AAPA).
As per claim 2, Kapinos/Lei teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), wherein sending instructions from the scheduler directly to the plurality of compute resources comprises sending the instructions to a plurality of modules, each module being associated with one of the compute resources (Kapino, Fig 2 250).
Kapinos/Lei does not expressly teach:
wherein the modules are baseboard management controllers (BMCs);
However, AAPA discloses:
wherein the modules are baseboard management controllers (BMCs) (AAPA, [0002]);
Both AAPA and Kapinos/Lei pertain to the art of workload assignment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use AAPA’s method to use BMCs because it is well-known in the art that BMC's ability to monitor server health in real-time and provide proactive alerts enables administrators to respond quickly to potential issues, reducing downtime and improving overall server availability.
As per claim 3, Kapinos/Lei/AAPA teaches:
The method of claim 2 (see rejection on claim 2), further comprising:
sending instructions from each BMC to an associated accelerator (Kapinos, Fig 2 212, 218);
collecting sensor data by each accelerator in response to the instructions (Kapinos, Fig 2 248);
sending the collected sensor data from each accelerator to the associated BMC (Kapinos, Fig 2 248, 250); and
sending the sensor data from the BMCs to the scheduler (Kapinos, Fig 2 212, 218).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapinos/Lei as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Swierk et al (US 2024/0281046) (hereinafter Swierk).
As per claim 5, Kapinos/Lei teaches:
The method of claim 4 (see rejection on claim 4), further comprising cooking the sensor data by the shims, wherein receiving the sensor data comprises receiving cooked sensor data (Kapinos, Abstract).
Kapinos/Lei does not expressly teach:
wherein the cooking is aggregating;
However, Swierk discloses:
wherein the cooking is aggregating (Swierk, [0204]);
Both Swierk and Kapinos/Lei pertain to the art of sensor data management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Swierk’s method to aggregate sensor data because it is well-known in the art that consolidating sensor data (known as sensor fusion) mathematically combines multiple data streams into a unified, correlated assessment. This practice overcomes individual sensor limitations, lowers false alarms, and creates a highly accurate, real-time picture of a system
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapinos/Lei as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Land et al (US 2024/0348699) (hereinafter Land) .
As per claim 6, Kapinos/Lei teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Kapinos/Lei does not expressly teach:
wherein sending the instructions from the scheduler comprises sending a fire-and-forget instruction.
However, Land discloses:
wherein sending the instructions from the scheduler comprises sending a fire-and-forget instruction (Land, [0015]).
Both Land and Kapinos/Lei pertain to the art of task processing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Land’s method to send fire-and-forget tasks because it is well-known in the art that sending a fire-and-forget instruction maximizes speed, system throughput, and operator safety. Because the sender dispatches a message and immediately moves on without waiting for a response, it minimizes latency, prevents blocking, and frees up resources.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapinos/Lei as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arlitt et al (US 8683479 ) (hereinafter Arlitt).
As per claim 7, Kapinos/Lei teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Kapinos/Lei does not expressly teach:
further comprising controlling thermal management of the compute resources based on the sensor data.
However, Arlitt discloses:
further comprising controlling thermal management of the compute resources based on the sensor data (Arlitt , col 5, ll 66-67, col 6, ll 1-2).
Both Arlitt and Kapinos/Lei pertain to the art of workload processing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Arlitt’s method to control thermal management because it is well-known in the art that thermal management control optimizes energy use, extends component lifespan, and prevents system failures by intelligently regulating heat. By dynamically adjusting heating and cooling based on real-time data, systems can recover waste heat, reduce operational costs, and prevent dangerous temperature spikes.
As per claim 8, Kapinos/Lei teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Kapinos/Lei does not expressly teach:
wherein developing the workload distribution plan comprises developing a plan based on carbon emission intensity considerations.
However, Arlitt discloses:
wherein developing the workload distribution plan comprises developing a plan based on carbon emission intensity considerations (Arlitt , col 5, ll 66-67, col 6, ll 1-2).
Both Arlitt and Kapinos/Lei pertain to the art of workload processing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Arlitt’s method to develop a plan based on carbon emission intensity considerations because it is well-known in the art that a carbon emission intensity benefit plan tailors organizational rewards, bonuses, or financial incentives to reductions in greenhouse gases emitted per unit of economic output per square foot or unit produced. This approach drives operational efficiency and cost savings without penalizing business growth.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapinos/Lei as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Neog et al (US 2021/0409306 ) (hereinafter Neog).
As per claim 9, Kapinos/Lei teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Kapinos/Lei does not expressly teach:
further comprising setting operational parameters of the compute resources by the scheduler when developing the workload distribution plan, the operational parameters being determined by the scheduler based on the sensor data.
However, Neog discloses:
further comprising setting operational parameters of the compute resources by the scheduler when developing the workload distribution plan (Neog, [0067], [0068]—under BRI, setting operational parameters can be instructing to switch over routing engine), the operational parameters being determined by the scheduler based on the sensor data (Neog, [0067], [0068]).
Both Neog and Kapinos/Lei pertain to the art of workload processing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Neog’s method to set operational parameters because it is well-known in the art that setting operational parameters for workload execution allows organizations to control costs, prevent system bottlenecks, and enforce reliable performance. By defining these boundaries, teams maximize resource utilization, ensure compliance, and minimize manual intervention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2015/0121387 teaches a method of scheduling tasks in consideration of power.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5100. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-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, 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.
/CHARLIE SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights