DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1–7 and 21–33 are pending for examination in the response filed on
07/07/2026.
Claims 8–20 are WITHDRAWN.
And claims 21–33 are NEW.
Drawings
3. The drawings were received on 04/12/2024 (in the application filings). These drawings are acceptable.
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.
4. Claims 1–5, 21–25, and 28–32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
5. As to independent claim 1, the claim recites:
“predict if there are sufficient resources available to grant the overclocking request based on power and component lifetime predictions.”
As to independent claims 21 and 28, they recite similar language of commensurate scope as claim 1.
These limitations, as currently drafted and within their respective claim, represent processes that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, etc.) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the use of a “computer processor” to perform these steps, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or using pencil and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) – Examples of Concepts The Courts Have Identified As Abstract Ideas, discussing abstract ideas or concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work).
For example, but for the use of generic computers,
the performance of these steps in the context of the claims reasonably encompasses the user mentally and/or manually performing the steps of mentally
1) predicting sufficiency of resources available to grant a request.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (under Prong Two of Step 2A)
(I) Generic Computing Device
For instance, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “at least one processor; and
at least one memory on which is stored: at least one local workload intelligence agent (LWIA) comprising processor-readable instructions … at least one server overclocking agent (SOA) comprising processor-readable instructions” and
claim 28 recited the additional elements of a “non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processing device” that perform these steps.
The elements of “at least one processor; and at least one memory on which is stored,” “processor-readable instructions,” and “non-transitory computer readable storage medium,”
are all recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computing devices performing one or more generic computer functions such as processing and outputting data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
(II) Data Collection
As shown, claim 1 also includes the additional element of:
(a) “forward an overclocking request based on a determination regarding overclocking of at least one assigned virtual machine (VM) hosted on a cloud platform;”
However, merely obtaining or collecting data for processing (e.g. collection by the “server overclocking agent (SOA)”) simply does not “integrate” the abstract idea into a practical application which improves the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field.
Moreover, the courts have also held that limitations which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
As discussed below and set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(g), the mere collection and storage of information for processing essentially amounts to data gathering and storing and therefore is consider an “insignificant extra-solution activity.”
(III) Data Output
Additionally, claim 1 also includes the additional element of:
(a) “forward an overclocking request based on a determination regarding overclocking of at least one assigned virtual machine (VM) hosted on a cloud platform” (output from the local workload intelligence agent (LWIA)); and
(b) “transmit a request grant signal or a request denial signal respectively granting or denying the overclocking request based on the predictions of resource availability” (output from the server overclocking agent (SOA)).
However, merely presenting or outputting the information from one computing device to another simply does not “integrate” the abstract idea into a practical application which improves the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field, absent a further step or activity that executes or implement controls (such as clocking, power and/or other resource re-configurations, adjustments, controls), and thereby effecting a change or improvement to the functioning of the computer or the computing device.
Moreover, the courts have also held that limitations which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
As discussed below and set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(g), the mere outputting of information (for display or further manipulation) is considered an “insignificant extra-solution activity.”
Accordingly, the additional elements of the claims, viewed individually and as an ordered combination, added nothing to the implementation of a mental process on an unspecified, “generic” computer and therefore failed to transform the abstract idea nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application.
(IV) Particular Technological Environment or Field Of Use
As shown above, the claims also include the elements of:
(1) “overclocking request based on a determination regarding overclocking of at least one assigned virtual machine (VM) hosted on a cloud platform,”
(2) “sufficient resources available to grant the overclocking request based on power and component lifetime predictions,” and
(3) “request grant signal or a request denial signal respectively granting or denying the overclocking request.” i.e. information or data indicating request grant or a request denial
These exemplary elements however merely describes the general technical or computing environment (a plurality of physically containerized edge data center units executing at least one workload, and a plurality of connected edge assets) and restrict the processed information or data to a particular type or category (without imposing any functional claim limitations, activities, or steps).
Limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, neither meaningfully limit the claim nor transform (the abstract idea nature of) the claim to a particular useful application to improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology.
Under Step 2B of the 101 analysis:
The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As claimed, the “at least one processor; and at least one memory on which is stored: at least one local workload intelligence agent (LWIA) comprising processor-readable instructions … at least one server overclocking agent (SOA) comprising processor-readable instructions” and a “non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processing device” merely encompass generic computing components (e.g. generic computer/networking components and computer programs) recited at a high-level of generality, executing one or more steps of the claims.
Moreover, the activity of “mere data gathering” have also been found by the courts to be “insignificant extra-solution activity” as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, describing that in determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, one may factoring into consideration whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).
As recited, the step of:
(a) “forward an overclocking request based on a determination regarding overclocking of at least one assigned virtual machine (VM) hosted on a cloud platform”
is merely a data gathering activity for additional processing (to determine whether overclock is to be granted).
Moreover, the activity of “outputting information” have also been found by the courts to be “insignificant extra-solution activity” as set forth in 2106.05(g)(3) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, describing that in determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, one may factoring into consideration whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).
As recited, the steps of:
(a) “forward an overclocking request based on a determination regarding overclocking of at least one assigned virtual machine (VM) hosted on a cloud platform” (output from the local workload intelligence agent (LWIA)); and
(b) “transmit a request grant signal or a request denial signal respectively granting or denying the overclocking request based on the predictions of resource availability” (output from the server overclocking agent (SOA)),
are merely activities outputting information from one computing device to another.
Additionally, the computing activity of a) receiving or transmitting data over a network, and b) storing and retrieving information in memory, set forth in 2106.05(d)(II), setting forth that courts have recognized computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
As recited, the step of
(a) “forward an overclocking request based on a determination regarding overclocking of at least one assigned virtual machine (VM) hosted on a cloud platform” (output from the local workload intelligence agent (LWIA)); and
(b) “transmit a request grant signal or a request denial signal respectively granting or denying the overclocking request based on the predictions of resource availability” (output from the server overclocking agent (SOA)),
merely involving the sending, distribution, and dissemination of information across computing devices.
Accordingly, the additional step(s) or element(s) of the claims, viewed individually and as an ordered combination, added nothing to the implementation of a mental process on an unspecified, “generic” computer and therefore failed to transform the abstract idea nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application.
6. As to dependent claims 2–5, 22–25, and 29–32, each of these claims either (1) recites additional step(s) that covers performance in the mind; or (2) merely restricts or links the process step, information or data to a particular type, technological environment, or field of use; (3) amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception such as data input, display, storage, or output; or (4) recites a function which amounts to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) and is no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer; and thus as a whole is also directed and confined to the same process set forth in claims 1, 21 and 28. Therefore, these claims do not individually or collectively add an inventive concept or additional element(s) amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, dependent claim 2, reciting “wherein the one or more user configuration inputs are indicative of an updated configuration for a respective ML or Al workload of the one or more ML or Al workloads,” merely restricts or links the process step, information or data to a particular type, technological environment, or field of use, using generic computer/networking components and computer programs.
For example, dependent claim 2, reciting “wherein the instructions to forward the overclocking request for the at least one assigned VM further cause the at least one processor to:
forward the overclocking request based on the determination regarding overclocking of the assigned VM made at least on either or both of schedule-based thresholds and metrics-based thresholds” merely recite step(s) amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception such as data input or output and further include additional step(s) or activity(s) that covers performance in the mind
Dependent claim 3, reciting “… monitor metrics of interest for the at least one assigned VM, wherein the metrics-based thresholds are applicable to the metrics of interest that include at least tail latency, queue length, resource utilization; and
monitor the schedule-based thresholds during high-traffic periods” merely recite additional step(s) or activity(s) that covers performance in the mind and further restricts or links the process step, information or data to a particular type, technological environment, or field of use.
Dependent claim 4, reciting “… monitor power consumption of a plurality of VMs assigned to the at least one SOA, wherein the at least one assigned VM includes the plurality of VMs; and
periodically compute a power template for the plurality of VMs, wherein the power template represents a single day aggregation of power draws by the plurality of VMs” merely recite additional step(s) or activity(s) that covers performance in the mind and further restricts or links the process step, information or data to a particular type, technological environment, or field of use.
Dependent claim 5, reciting “… predict, based at least on the power template, if additional power of overclocking the at least one assigned VM of the plurality of VMs will trigger a power capping event” merely recite additional step(s) or activity(s) that covers performance in the mind and further restricts or links the process step, information or data to a particular type, technological environment, or field of use.
As to dependent claims 22–25 and 29–32, they are the corresponding method and computer program product claims correspond to at least one of claims 2–5,. Therefore, these claims do not individually or collectively 1) integrated the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they 2) include additional element(s) amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 6–7, 26–27, and 33 include element(s) integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 6–7, 26–27, and 33 include element(s) integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore they are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim under 101, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim.
The following is the Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance in view of searched and considered prior art:
The prior art of record, when viewed individually or in combination, does not expressly teach nor render obvious the features of the independent claims 1, 21, and 28, when viewed as a whole, specific to the limitation(s) of:
“predict if there are sufficient resources available to grant the overclocking request based on power and component lifetime predictions; and
transmit a request grant signal or a request denial signal respectively granting or denying the overclocking request based on the predictions of resource availability.”
a. At best, a first cited reference and closest prior art, Subbannavar et al., US 2025/0208966 A1, teaches efficiently scheduling wavefronts for efficiently increasing computing system performance by using operating settings that exceed the manufacturer's default range of settings. In various implementations, a computing system includes a server that communicates with multiple client devices through a network. The server receives an overclocking request from a client device for an overclocking recommendation profile. The server searches a database that stores multiple overclocking recommendation profiles based on test data generated by multiple system configurations. The server either receives an overclocking recommendation profile from the database or generates an overclocking recommendation profile using one of several hardware-based and software-based systems.
Subbannavar does not teach “predict if there are sufficient resources available to grant the overclocking request based on power and component lifetime predictions; and
transmit a request grant signal or a request denial signal respectively granting or denying the overclocking request based on the predictions of resource availability.”
b. A second cited reference, ABDOLLAHIAN et al., US 2023/0061136 A1, teaches in general, a server system that executes a global scheduler that distributes virtual machines that perform compute tasks for server-executed software programs to the plurality of compute clusters of the distributed compute platform. To distribute virtual machines for a target server-executed software program, the global scheduler is configured to select a subset of compute clusters that have different complementary patterns of energy supply such that the subset of compute clusters aggregately provide a target compute resource availability for virtual machines for the target server-executed software program.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(a) Pillai et al., US 12126458 B1, teaching conserving power by network devices in a software define wide area network (SDWAN).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN C WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5906. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M..
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, Aimee J. Li can be reached on (571)272-4169. 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.
/BENJAMIN C WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
September 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights