DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes. Claims 11-20 are directed to a media and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture.
Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 11: The limitations of “selecting a server…” and “scheduling the workload to the selected server,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can examine data and from it make a selection and then implement that selection.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1 and 11 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1 and 11: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements – “a pool of servers” and “a non-transitory storage medium,” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)) which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claims 1 and 11 recite the following additional elements – “receiving…a workload…” and “receiving thermal data…,” which are merely recitations of insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and will also be addressed below in Step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1 and 11 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 11: 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 which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, to the extent that “receiving…a workload…” and “receiving thermal data…” are positively recited steps of receiving data, this would be insignificant extra-solution data gathering which is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following 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. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network,”).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1 and 11 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non-statutory for at least the reasons stated above. The claims are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the non-statutory deficiencies of Claim 1. Specifically, each claim simply clarifies details of the various claimed elements or adds further mental processes that are similar to the steps in claim 1. Claims 2-10 do not add any steps or elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter. Similarly, claims 12-20 also do not add any steps or elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert their independent claims into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 7-12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Campbell et al (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2011/0093856 A1, hereinafter Campbell).
As per claim 1, Campbell teaches the limitations as claimed, including a method, the method comprising:
receiving a workload for execution (Paragraph [0031], “identifying those compute intensive jobs to a data center management module for thermal-based job scheduling”) in computing resources that include a pool of servers at a scheduler (Figure 3);
receiving thermal data from each of the servers in the pool of servers, at the scheduler, from a sensor collector, wherein the thermal data includes fan sensor data (Paragraph [0031]);
selecting a server from the pool of servers based on the fan sensor data (Paragraph [0046]; Figure 5); and
scheduling the workload to the selected server (Paragraph [0046]; Figure 5).
As per claim 2, Campbell teaches that the fan sensor data comprises a fan speed, a fan curve, fan setpoints, and/or a PWM value for each of the servers (Paragraph [0031]).
As per claim 7, Campbell teaches receiving user requirements, resource requirements, and/or device requirements along with the workload (Paragraph [0040]).
As per claim 8, Campbell teaches identifying candidate servers from the pool of servers, wherein candidate servers are those that have available resources to satisfy the resource requirements and/or the device requirements, wherein the resource or user requirements specify hardware and/or software requirements (Paragraph [0046]; Figure 5).
As per claim 9, Campbell teaches tiered computing resources, wherein a workload that is too large for a selected server is moved to a server with larger resources (Paragraph [0046]; Figure 5).
As per claim 10, Campbell teaches that scheduling the workload includes deploying the workload and executing the workload at the selected server (Paragraph [0046]; Figure 5).
As per claims 11, 12, and 17-20, they are medium claim with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell in view of Dugar et al (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0300052 A1, hereinafter Dugar).
As per claim 3, Campbell does not expressly teach that the thermal data further comprises power data and thermal sensor data for each of the servers, wherein the power data includes a current or a peak power or a lowest power.
However, Dugar teaches that the thermal data further comprises power data and thermal sensor data for each of the servers, wherein the power data includes a current or a peak power or a lowest power (Paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Dugar with those of Campbell in order to allow for Campbell’s method to take into consideration a wider array of information in making scheduling decisions, which could increase the efficiency of the method, thereby potentially increasing buy-in from prospective users.
As per claim 4, Dugar teaches that the thermal data comprises an exhaust temperature for each of the servers, a processor temperature, and/or other temperatures from other sensors (Paragraph [0041]).
As per claims 13 and 14, they are medium claim with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell and Dugar, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Gautier (U.S. Pat. No. 7127493 B1).
As per claim 5, Campbell and Dugar do not teach that the selected server is selected by optimizing constraints represented by the thermal data.
However, Gautier teaches that the selected server is selected by optimizing constraints represented by the thermal data (Col. 1, Lines 21-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Gautier with those of Campbell and Dugar in order to allow for Campbell’s and Dugar’s method to take advantage of a systematic approach to making various determinations, which could increase the reliability of the method and trust in the method.
As per claim 6, Gautier teaches that the selected server is identified using a heuristic or a model that has been trained on historical thermal data and scheduling data (Col. 1, Lines 21-28).
As per claims 15 and 16, they are medium claim with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory Kessler whose telephone number is (571)270-7762. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 - 5, Alternate Fridays 8:30-4.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at (571)272-3338. 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.
/GREGORY A KESSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights