DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response, filed 11/26/25, for application number 18/630,155 has been received and entered into record. No amendments were made as to the claims. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 12, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and the outstanding double patenting rejection were overcome.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,977,900 in view of Fuller, US 2022/0318154 A1 (as cited in the IDS).
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, the differences are highlighted below:
Instant Application
US 11,977,900 B2
1. A method for managing undervoltage in a compute system, comprising:
detecting an alternating current ("AC") undervoltage condition in the compute system, the compute system comprising a plurality of power supplies providing shared power to the compute system; and
in response to detecting the AC undervoltage condition:
dynamically determining a present aggregate power output comprising a value indicating the amount of electricity presently being supplied by the plurality of power supplies at the time of the determining;
dynamically determining a holdup time as a function of the present aggregate power output;
beginning a monitoring period and determining a duration for the monitoring period as a function of the dynamically determined holdup time;
waiting for the monitoring period to expire; and
in response to the AC undervoltage condition persisting upon expiration of the monitoring period, performing a shutdown process.
1. A method for managing undervoltage in a compute system, comprising:
detecting an alternating current (“AC”) undervoltage condition in the compute system by
receiving a first indication from each of a plurality of power supplies for the compute system whether the respective power supply is receiving an input power within regulation;
receiving a second indication from each of the plurality of power supplies whether the respective power supply is providing an output power within regulation;
comparing a number of negative first indications to a number of positive second indications;
if the number of negative first indications matches the number of positive second indications, then determining that the AC undervoltage condition persists; and
if the number of negative first indications is less than the number of positive second indications, then determining that the AC undervoltage condition has resolved; and
in response to detecting the AC undervoltage condition:
dynamically determining a holdup time as a function of the present load of the compute system;
determining a monitoring period as a function of the dynamically determined holdup time;
waiting for the determined monitoring period to expire; and
in response to expiration of the determined monitoring period, perform a shutdown process if the AC undervoltage condition persists.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein:
dynamically determining the holdup time as the function of the present aggregate power output includes dynamically determining a holdup time for an asynchronous dynamic random access memory refresh ("ADR") as a function of the present aggregate power output; and
performing the shutdown process includes performing an ADR.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein:
dynamically determining the holdup time as the function of the present load includes dynamically determining a holdup time for an asynchronous dynamic random access memory refresh (“ADR”) as a function of the present load; and
performing the shutdown process includes performing an ADR.
Claim 1 of the instant application and Claim 1 of the ‘900 patent are both directed towards managing undervoltage of a compute system. However, Claim 1 of the ‘900 patent does not explicitly teach the compute system comprising a plurality of power supplies providing shared power to the compute system.
In the analogous art of power management, Fuller teaches the compute system comprising a plurality of power supplies providing shared power to the compute system [aggregate energy across multiple PSUs may be used to provide power to the system, par 59].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the ‘900 patent and Fuller before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the plurality of power supplies providing shared power as taught by Fuller, into the method as disclosed by the ‘900 patent, to ensure sufficient power to maintain the persistent state of data [Fuller, par 59].
Claims 10 and 16 of the instant application recite limitations similar to those of Claim 1 of the instant application, and so are rejected accordingly.
Claims 3-9, 11-15, and 17-20 of the instant application depend on Claims 1, 10, and 16 of the instant application, and similarly correspond to Claims 3-9, 11-15, and 17-20 of the ‘900 patent, and are rejected accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fuller.
Regarding Claim 1, Fuller discloses a method for managing undervoltage in a compute system [using controller 100, Fig. 1], comprising:
detecting an alternating current ("AC") undervoltage condition in the compute system, the compute system comprising a plurality of power supplies providing shared power to the compute system [aggregate energy across multiple PSUs may be used to provide power to the system, par 59]; and
in response to detecting the AC undervoltage condition [Fig. 2, 208; monitoring circuitry, process 200 may detect the loss of AC power (operation 208), par 49]:
dynamically determining a present aggregate power output comprising a value indicating the amount of electricity presently being supplied by the plurality of power supplies at the time of the determining [elements 102a – 102b; monitoring total energy available across all power supplies; i.e. PSUs, Fig. 1, par 59];
dynamically determining a holdup time as a function of the power output [estimating a total amount of ride-through time and hold-up time based on system load (operation 202). The ride-through time corresponds to an estimated amount of time that system 100 may operate without AC power while leaving sufficient energy to perform a cached flush and sequence down the power rails. The hold-up time corresponds to the amount of time to perform a full cache flush and sequence down the power rails given the system load … a time may be set based on the estimated ride-through time rather than a voltage/energy-based threshold; power management subsystem 104 accounts for runtime power load, which allows for variable ride-through and hold-up times to more efficiently and effectively use the stored energy, par 45, 46, 57];
beginning a monitoring period and determining a duration for the monitoring period as a function of the dynamically determined holdup time [estimating a total amount of ride-through time and hold-up time based on system load (operation 202). The ride-through time corresponds to an estimated amount of time that system 100 may operate without AC power while leaving sufficient energy to perform a cached flush and sequence down the power rails. The hold-up time corresponds to the amount of time to perform a full cache flush and sequence down the power rails given the system load. … process 200 programs one or more energy thresholds based on the estimated ride-through time and hold-up time (operation 204)… a time may be set based on the estimated ride-through time rather than a voltage/energy-based threshold.” i.e. the system monitors the voltage/time until the amount of charge remaining in the ride-through time is sufficient to sustain the hold-up time, par 45, 46];
waiting for the monitoring period to expire [process 200 may determine that the threshold is satisfied if the measured voltage across the one or more bulk capacitors crosses below the voltage threshold programmed at operation 204; 204-216, Fig. 2; par 53]; and
in response to the AC undervoltage condition persisting upon expiration of the monitoring period, performing a shutdown process [if the threshold is not satisfied, then process 200 may continue monitoring the PSU energy levels until power is restored or the voltage in the PSU bulk capacitors reaches or falls below the programmable threshold. Once the threshold is satisfied, a warning signal may be asserted to trigger the cache flush and power down sequence, 216-222, Fig. 2; par 53].
Regarding Claim 2, Fuller discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein dynamically determining the holdup time as the function of the present aggregate power output includes dynamically determining a holdup time for an asynchronous dynamic random access memory refresh ("ADR") as a function of the present aggregate power output [estimating a total amount of ride-through time and hold-up time based on system load (operation 202). The ride-through time corresponds to an estimated amount of time that system 100 may operate without AC power while leaving sufficient energy to perform a cached flush and sequence down the power rails. The hold-up time corresponds to the amount of time to perform a full cache flush and sequence down the power rails given the system load. … process 200 programs one or more energy thresholds based on the estimated ride-through time and hold-up time (operation 204)… a time may be set based on the estimated ride-through time rather than a voltage/energy-based threshold.’ i.e. during the interval between a/c power failure and when the hold-up time threshold is crossed, the system monitors power and a/c ok signals; elements 206-208 and 210-216, Fig. 2; par 45, 46, 72]; and performing the shutdown process includes performing an ADR [220, 222, Fig. 2].
Regarding Claim 3, Fuller discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the value indicates the amount of electricity presently being supplied by the plurality of power supplies in terms of a percentage of a rated load for the plurality of power supplies [elements 410, 414, and 416; when PSU 402 asserts a vwarn signal, then power management subsystem 408 may decrement energy counter 410 at a rate proportional to the number of PSUs in the system and the maximum load per supply. Energy counter 412 is managed independently of energy counter 410 (the vwarn signals from PSUs do not trigger the count on unassociated counters for other PSUs) and is decremented responsive to PSU 404 asserting a vwarn signal. Power management subsystem 408 includes adder 414, which sums together the estimated energy counts for the PSUs to compute aggregate energy counter 416, Fig. 4; par 73].
Regarding Claim 4, Fuller discloses the method of Claim 3, wherein determining the present aggregate power output includes: receiving from each of the plurality of power supplies, an individual power output indication indicating the amount of electricity presently being supplied by the respective power supply in terms of the percentage of the rated load powered by the respective power supply; and summing the individual power output indications [elements 410, 414, and 416; when PSU 402 asserts a vwarn signal, then power management subsystem 408 may decrement energy counter 410 at a rate proportional to the number of PSUs in the system and the maximum load per supply. Energy counter 412 is managed independently of energy counter 410 (the vwarn signals from PSUs do not trigger the count on unassociated counters for other PSUs) and is decremented responsive to PSU 404 asserting a vwarn signal. Power management subsystem 408 includes adder 414, which sums together the estimated energy counts for the PSUs to compute aggregate energy counter 416, Fig. 4; par 73].
Regarding Claim 5, Fuller discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the duration of the monitoring period as a function of the dynamically determined holdup time includes determining the duration to be equal to monitoring period as the dynamically determined holdup time less a response time for a first indication from each of a plurality of power supplies for the compute system [each PSU may provide separate acok signals (not shown) to power management subsystem 408. These signals may be independently de-asserted by the individual PSUs when AC power is lost to signal which PSU lost power, par 72] whether the respective power supply is receiving an input power within regulation and less a period for performing the shutdown process [‘estimating a total amount of ride-through time and hold-up time based on system load (operation 202). The ride-through time corresponds to an estimated amount of time that system 100 may operate without AC power while leaving sufficient energy to perform a cached flush and sequence down the power rails. The hold-up time corresponds to the amount of time to perform a full cache flush and sequence down the power rails given the system load. … process 200 programs one or more energy thresholds based on the estimated ride-through time and hold-up time (operation 204)… a time may be set based on the estimated ride-through time rather than a voltage/energy-based threshold; i.e. during the interval between a/c power failure and when the hold-up time threshold is crossed, the system monitors power and a/c ok signals, 206-208, 210-216, Fig. 2; par 45, 46].
Regarding Claim 6, Fuller discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising: throttling selected operations of the compute system [while running in the first operating mode, system components may be powered using the energy in the PSU bulk capacitors. In some embodiments, power may be provided as if AC had not been disrupted. In other embodiments, power saving adjustments may be made within system 100. For example, processor frequency may be throttled, par 51]; and wherein: determining the duration of the monitoring period as a function of the dynamically determined holdup time includes dynamically determining the duration of the monitoring period as a function of the dynamically determined holdup time after throttling the selected operations [power management subsystem 104 accounts for runtime power load, which allows for variable ride-through and hold-up times to more efficiently and effectively use the stored energy, par 57, 45].
Regarding Claim 8, Fuller discloses method of Claim 1, further comprising: during the monitoring period, monitoring the AC undervoltage condition; and in response to the AC undervoltage condition being resolved prior to expiration of the determined monitoring period, continuing or returning to normal operations [200, 206, 208, Fig. 2; par 44].
Regarding Claim 9, Fuller discloses method of Claim 1, further comprising continuing or returning to normal operations if the AC undervoltage condition is resolved upon expiration of the determined monitoring period [operations 202 and 204 may be performed during a boot sequence for system 100; i.e. after the system has power it may be rebooted and the monitoring process begins again, Fig. 2; par 44, 47].
Claims 10 and 16 recite limitations similar to those of Claim 1, and are rejected accordingly.
Claims 11, 13-15 and Claims 17, 19, and 20 depend on Claims 10 and 16, respectively, and recite limitations similar to those of Claims 2, 4, 8, and 9, and Claims 2, 4, and 8, respectively, and are rejected accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Fuller does not disclose determining the “holdup time” and “ride-through time” dynamically in response to detecting the AC undervoltage condition, but instead discloses the operation before the occurrence of a power loss [Rem. 11]. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While Fig. 2 does illustrate step 202 occurring prior to step 206-210, the accompanying paragraphs further clarify that “[o]ne or more operations illustrated in Fig. 2 may be modified, rearranged, or omitted altogether.” (emphasis added) [Fuller, par 44]. As such, the determination of the holdup time may occur based on an estimate, or on the actual values which are detected during the process, and addresses the limitation at issue.
Applicant also argues Fuller’s “runtime power load” does not refer to the present aggregate power output. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues Fuller’s determination of hold-up time is based on estimates at bootup, rather than dynamically on actual present aggregate power. [Rem. 12] Examiner notes, as above, the operations illustrated in Fig. 2 may be modified, rearranged, or omitted altogether. As such, the determination of the ride-through and hold-up times are based on a system load, which may be the current (i.e. dynamic) system load, rather than a fixed bootup value.
Applicant further argues the rejection, in addressing the dynamic determination of a present aggregate power, has mistaken total energy available for present aggregate power output. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant specifically argues “The total energy available refers to how much energy is currently stored in the bulk capacitors of the PSUs, with the voltage being used as proxy to indicate this value” and “[t]he ‘present aggregate power output,’ on the other hand, is value indicating the amount of power presently being supplied and consumed.” (emphasis in original) [Rem. 13] Examiner notes, however, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, an aggregate power output simply includes an aggregate amount of power to be output, and does not necessarily require any consumption values to be considered. Should Applicant intend for consumption to be part of the consideration, the claims would need to be amended to better reflect such a consideration.
Finally, Applicant argues Fuller does not address the limitation of beginning a monitoring period and determining a duration for the monitoring period. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Applicant argues Fuller does not monitor the passage of time, but voltage instead. Examiner notes that the rejection addresses the system monitoring the voltage until the amount of charge remaining in the ride-through time is sufficient to sustain the hold-up time, and the monitoring period expires upon the remaining charge no longer being sufficient. That is, there is a monitoring period which begins and expires based on the voltage amounts as relates to the ride-through and hold-up times. Moreover, as cited in the rejection previously, “a time may be set based on the estimated ride-through time rather than a voltage/energy-based threshold.” [Fuller, par 45, 46].
Applicant further argues the shutdown of Fuller is not performed based on elapsing of a predetermined amount of time, but solely on voltage. As noted above, the monitoring duration is determined based on the ride-through and hold-up time charge, and “a time may be set based on the estimated ride-through time rather than a voltage/energy-based threshold.” [Fuller, par 45, 46]. As such, Applicant’s arguments as to Fuller simply monitoring voltage are not persuasive.
No additional arguments were made as to the remaining limitations or claims. As such, the rejection is maintained.
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 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 PAUL J YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 PT.
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.
/Paul Yen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175