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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the references fail to disclose the newly amended limitations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Wenzel discloses the alleged missing limitations:
Wenzel discloses “wherein the digital emissions forecast is generated based on utility data indicating a type of power provided to the asset (such that the utility grid is contribute to the calculation of forecasting emission, refer to par 0054-0056, 0250-0252: where calculation involving knowing type of resources being used e.g., electric, water, gas, pump, etc.).
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive, the rejection is therefore maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenzel et al hereinafter Wenzel (US 20230253787) in view of McGuire et al hereinafter McGuire (US 2022/0398515).
Referring to Claim 1. Wenzel discloses a method comprising: determining an emissions load target for an asset (carbon emission constraint , refer to par 0268) and wherein the emissions load target accounts for emissions attributable to a manufacture of the asset and to the operation of the asset (emission is account for manufactory of the assets: plants that has supplants of different types of equipment, produce carbon emission, refer to par 0084, 0087, 0093, 0094, 0096, 0135 and operation of the assets: rate of emission of natural gas per type of supplants which contains multiple equipment), wherein the emissions load target indicates a limit on digital emissions related to operation of the asset (refer to par 0111, 0268) and accounts for an anticipated lifespan of the asset (consider life of the assets, refer to 0090); determining, based on energy utilization data, a future energy utilization projection for the asset (refer to par 0110, 0111, par 0119, 0136, 0167)wherein the energy utilization data includes data regarding processing utilization and memory utilization of a workload executing on the asset (determine utilization of energy base on the processing and memory utilization, refer to par 0046, 0044, 0043 and 0012) ; generating, based on the future energy utilization projection, a digital emissions forecast for the asset based on digital emissions attributable to the asset (expected caron foot printed vs energy consumption projection in the future, refer to par 0250-0255); wherein the digital emissions forecast is generated based on utility data indicating a type of power provided to the asset (such that the utility grid is contribute to the calculation of forecasting emission, refer to par 0054-0056, 0250-0252: where calculation involving knowing type of resources being used e.g., electric, water, gas, pump, etc.) and alleviating an energy demand of a workload executing on the asset in response to determining that the digital emissions forecast exceeds the emissions load target (adjust the demand, refer to par 0255-0255, 0011).
McGuire, in analogous art, is introduced to demonstrate the well-known features such that: it is well known to estimate potential failovers of the components based on predicted energy consumption and to ensure the continued service in a green manner such that to execute an efficient carbon footprint awareness mechanism (refer to par 0028 and 0031).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Wenzel with McGuire because McGuire’s teaching would allow the system of Wenzel to provide energy efficiency and reduce power consumption.
Referring to Claim 2. Wenzel and McGuire disclosed the method of claim 1, Wenzel further discloses wherein the emissions load target accounts for emissions attributable to manufacture of the asset (facility and asset associated with facility, refer to par 0267), the operation of the asset, and at least one of decommissioning of the asset or a disposal of the asset (emission is account for manufactory of the assets: plants that has supplants of different types, produce carbon emission, refer to par 0094, 0096, 0135 and operation of the assets: rate of emission of natural gas per type of supplants and turn equipment on/off, refer to par 0282) and wherein the digital emission forecast for the asset is generated further based on utility data indicating of a type of power provided to the asset (type of power such as carbon emission which each type of has different type of rate of carbon emission per unit, refer to par 0093 and 0250-0255 and rate of emission is considered to determine the digital emission forecast).
Referring to Claim 3. Wenzel and McGuire disclosed the method of claim 1, Wenzel further discloses wherein alleviating an energy demand of the workload executing on the asset in response to determining that the digital emissions forecast exceeds the emissions load target includes: moving the workload from the asset to a different asset (refer to par 0190, 0245).
Referring to Claim 4. Wenzel and McGuire disclosed the method of claim 3, Wenzel further discloses wherein moving the workload from the asset to the different asset includes:
selecting another asset, based on its emissions load target and digital emissions forecast, to execute the workload (refer to par 0187, 0252-0254).
Referring to Claim 5. Wenzel and McGuire disclosed the method of claim 3, McGuire further discloses wherein moving the workload includes moving the workload to a different datacenter (refer to abstract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Wenzel with McGuire because McGuire’s teaching would allow the system of Wenzel to provide energy efficiency and reduce power consumption.
Referring to Claim 6. Wenzel and McGuire disclosed the method of claim 3, McGuire further discloses wherein moving the workload is responsive to determining that the energy demand of the workload cannot be alleviated by transitioning the workload among a plurality of execution states in accordance with a state schedule (refer to par 0023, 0031 and 0040).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Wenzel with McGuire because McGuire’s teaching would allow the system of Wenzel to provide energy efficiency and reduce power consumption.
Referring to Claim 7. Wenzel and McGuire disclosed the method of claim 1, Wenzel further discloses wherein alleviating an energy demand of the workload executing on the asset in response to determining that the digital emissions forecast exceeds the emissions load target includes: transitioning the workload among a plurality of execution states in accordance with a state schedule, wherein the plurality of execution states includes at least an active state and an inactive state (optimization/alleviation is performed based on the constraints, based on the user selected plan reduce or eliminate equipment the refer to par 0231, 0242-0243, 0282).
Referring to Claim 8. Wenzel and McGuire disclosed the method of claim 7, Wenzel further discloses wherein transitioning the workload among a plurality of execution states in accordance with a state schedule includes: determining a state schedule for the workload based on an activity profile of the workload and a plurality of cost metrics for each of the plurality of execution states (refer to par 0262-0264, 0275-027).
Referring to Claim 9. Wenzel and McGuire disclosed the method of claim 8, Wenzel further discloses wherein determining the state schedule for the workload includes: evaluating a total cost of each of a plurality of candidate state schedules (refer to par 0252-0255, 0262-0264); and selecting a candidate state schedule that minimizes digital emissions attributable to the workload (refer to par 0252-0255, 0262-0264).
Referring to Claim 10. Wenzel and McGuire disclosed the method of claim 8, Wenzel further discloses wherein determining the state schedule for the workload includes: providing the activity profile and the plurality of cost metrics to a pretrained machine learning model, wherein the pretrained machine learning model outputs a state schedule that minimizes digital emissions attributable to the workload (the optimization will minimize the digital emission, with cost-vs carbon information, as well as temperature setpoints in a building, and equipment’s as well as components of local energy system, refer to par 0247-0255, 0262- 0264, 00282).
Referring to Claim 11. Wenzel and McGuire disclosed the method of claim 8, Wenzel further discloses wherein determining the state schedule for the workload is further based on service level requirements for the workload (refer to par 0129, 0243).
Referring to Claim 12. Wenzel and McGuire disclosed the method of claim 7, Wenzel further discloses wherein determining the state schedule for the workload is responsive to determining that the energy demand of the workload cannot be alleviated by moving the workload (refer to par 0023, 0031 and 0040).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Wenzel with McGuire because McGuire’s teaching would allow the system of Wenzel to provide energy efficiency and reduce power consumption.
Referring to Claims 13-20, claims are rejected under similar rational as claims 1-12.
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 extension fee 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 KAREN C TANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3116. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 4pm.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. 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.
/KAREN C TANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
