CTNF 18/650,214 CTNF 83009 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16, and 19-20, but for the 35 USC 101 rejections per respective claim, 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a mental process directed to identifying one or more units in the refrigeration area corresponding to a coverage of one or more cooling devices; identifying one or more refrigeration area parameters associated with the one or more units based on the historical data; and determining whether the refrigeration area requires management based on the one or more refrigeration area parameters and the one or more user-defined rules, claims 1, 8 and 15; creating and inputting parameters into a polynomial regression mode, claims 2, 9, and 16; determining probability values, identifying room temperature values, identify power values, determining differences, claims 3-7, 9-14, and 15-20, and sorting and identifying, claims 7, 14, in combination with the respective claims as a whole. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because receiving represents tangential data gathering, claims 1,8, and 15. The computer program, processor, and memory represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, claims 8 and 15. The additional limitations regarding executing a predicted action, adjusting one or more settings of at least one cooling device covering the at least one unit to match the predicted target temperature and the predicted wind velocity, represent insignificant extra-solution activity because the adjustment is generally recited so as to apply the abstract idea, claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 19. It is recommended to implement the adjustment via a controlled action based on the determination or responsive action for affecting the environment. A parameter adjustment responsive to the determination does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea or provide a practical application of the abstract idea. For example and provided for illustrative purposes: “in response to determining the refrigeration area requires the management, executing a predicted action for at least one unit of the one or more units by controlling at least one unit to regulate an environmental condition by adjusting one or more settings of at least one cooling device covering the at least one unit.” The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor and memory represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea while the insignificant extra-solution activity is well understood, conventional, and routine, MPEP 2106.05(d). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by LO et al. (PG/PUB 20180328615) . Claim 1 LO et al. teaches a computer-based method of managing refrigeration for interconnected systems, the method comprising: receiving historical data from one or more sources in a refrigeration area and one or more user-defined rules (ABSTRACT, 0007-0008, 0044, 00568-69, 0073 e.g. see receiving environmental datums from multiple air conditioners as reading on receiving historical data and see determining whether support is needed as reading on one or more rules, 0007, 0054 e.g. see “supportive strategies.” ) identifying one or more units in the refrigeration area corresponding to a coverage of one or more cooling devices (0008, 0039, 0058-60, Figure 1 e.g. see identifying an air conditioner of a plurality of air conditioners having an influence of a region, Figure 2, Figure 4) identifying one or more refrigeration area parameters associated with the one or more units based on the historical data (ABSTRACT, 0007-0008, 0044, 00568-69, 0073, Figure 4, figure 5a e.g. see environmental datum comprising at least a temperature area parameter of multiple areas) determining whether the refrigeration area requires management based on the one or more refrigeration area parameters and the one or more user-defined rules (ABSTRACT, 0007-0008, 0044, 00568-69, 0073, Figure 1 e.g. determine compensation is needed due to at least one air conditioner failing to provide sufficient, target cooling of a zone, Figure 3) in response to determining the refrigeration area requires the management, executing a predicted action for at least one unit of the one or more units (Figure 3-S10-S32 e.g. see predetermined actions set in advance as a reading on a “prediction action.”) Claim 8 . LO et al. teaches computer system, the computer system comprising: one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more computer-readable memories, wherein the computer system is capable of performing a method comprising: receiving historical data from one or more sources in a refrigeration area and one or more user-defined rules, supra claim 1 identifying one or more units in the refrigeration area corresponding to a coverage of one or more cooling devices; supra claim 1 identifying one or more refrigeration area parameters associated with the one or more units based on the historical data; supra claim 1 determining whether the refrigeration area requires management based on the one or more refrigeration area parameters and the one or more user-defined rules; supra claim 1 in response to determining the refrigeration area requires the management, executing a predicted action for at least one unit of the one or more units, supra claim 1 Claim 15 . LO et al. teaches a computer program product, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, the program instructions executable by a processor capable of performing a method, the method comprising: receiving historical data from one or more sources in a refrigeration area and one or more user-defined rules; supra claim 1 identifying one or more units in the refrigeration area corresponding to a coverage of one or more cooling devices; supra claim 1 identifying one or more refrigeration area parameters associated with the one or more units based on the historical data; supra claim 1 determining whether the refrigeration area requires management based on the one or more refrigeration area parameters and the one or more user-defined rules; supra claim 1 in response to determining the refrigeration area requires the management, executing a predicted action for at least one unit of the one or more units, supra claim 1 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3-4, 10-11, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LO et al. in view over Demetriou et al. (USPN 9996092) . Claim 3 . The computer-based method of claim 1 but does not teach the probability value limitations described below. Demetriou et al. teaches the probability value limitations described below. wherein the one or more user-defined rules include a probability value within a threshold of room temperature, a threshold for a lower proportion of available power, and a threshold for a higher proportion of available power (Demetriou et al., ABSTRACT , Figure 3, Figure 1, Figure 4-100, 108, Col 6 lines 26-49, Col 7 lines 1-67 e.g. see predicting time period until temperature reaches a threshold temperature as reading on “probability value within a threshold,” In an embodiment, when the query block 110 returns a negative, this means that there may be insufficient time to correct the issue with the cooling system before the evaluated computer server 22 reaches the threshold temperature T*. In this embodiment, the process 88 may take proactive steps to reduce the dT/dt of the evaluated computer server 22 to avoid reaching the threshold temperature T* or increase the time period before the threshold temperature T* is reached. It should be appreciated that these proactive steps may be performed automatically, such as by the predictive analytics system 38 for example, or recommended actions may be transmitted to the data center operator. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Demetriou et a, namely adjusting a cooling system based on a probability of exceeding a temperature threshold, to the teachings of LO, namely adjusting a cooling unit responsive to a temperature exceeding a threshold through compensating, would achieve an expected and predictable result of implementing pre-emptive control before exceeding a temperature threshold. Demetriou et al. is reasonably pertinent to a problem of predictive actions based on probabilities in light of temperature thresholds. Claim 4 . LO, as modified, teaches the computer-based method of claim 3, wherein determining whether the refrigeration area requires the management further comprises: identifying a room temperature value of the probability value for each unit according to the one or more user-defined rules, Col 6 lines 26-49, Col 7 lines 1-67 e.g. “ In an embodiment, when the query block 110 returns a negative, this means that there may be insufficient time to correct the issue with the cooling system before the evaluated computer server 22 reaches the threshold temperature T*. In this embodiment, the process 88 may take proactive steps to reduce the dT/dt of the evaluated computer server 22 to avoid reaching the threshold temperature T* or increase the time period before the threshold temperature T* is reached. It should be appreciated that these proactive steps may be performed automatically, such as by the predictive analytics system 38 for example, or recommended actions may be transmitted to the data center operator. in response to determining at least one identified room temperature value is greater than the threshold of room temperature, determining the at least one unit having the at least one identified room temperature value greater than the threshold of room temperature lacks cooling resources, supra claim 1 for determining insufficient cooling due to target temperature being exceeded) Claim 10 . The computer system of claim 8, wherein the one or more user-defined rules include a probability value within a threshold of room temperature, a threshold for a lower proportion of available power, and a threshold for a higher proportion of available power, supra claim 3 Claim 11 . The computer system of claim 10, wherein determining whether the refrigeration area requires the management further comprises: identifying a room temperature value of the probability value for each unit according to the one or more user-defined rules; and in response to determining at least one identified room temperature value is greater than the threshold of room temperature, determining the at least one unit having the at least one identified room temperature value greater than the threshold of room temperature lacks cooling resources, supra claim 4 Claim 17 . The computer program product of claim 15, wherein the one or more user-defined rules include a probability value within a threshold of room temperature, a threshold for a lower proportion of available power, and a threshold for a higher proportion of available power, supra claim 3 Claim 18 . The computer program product of claim 17, wherein determining whether the refrigeration area requires the management further comprises: identifying a room temperature value of the probability value for each unit according to the one or more user-defined rules; supra claim 4 in response to determining at least one identified room temperature value is greater than the threshold of room temperature, determining the at least one unit having the at least one identified room temperature value greater than the threshold of room temperature lacks cooling resources, supra claim 4 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 5345379 6732179 9052702 7003378 20240353135 20240362524 20180059745 20150100165 8924026 88849630 20200119971 20240125504 20220170659 20220003447* 20210095881 20190017720 20180328615 20170205104 8684802 20140081467 20130289778 20130168038 20130123992 20120101648-0008*** 20110203785* 20110093121-power 20100057259 20090222139 20090199580 20180328615 20170205104 20120101648 20110203785 -0007 20090199580 20250315929 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRIN D DUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1645. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat (10-8) PST. 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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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. /DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/650,214 Page 2 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/650,214 Page 3 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/650,214 Page 4 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/650,214 Page 5 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/650,214 Page 6 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/650,214 Page 7 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/650,214 Page 8 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/650,214 Page 9 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/650,214 Page 10 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/650,214 Page 11 Art Unit: 2117
Prosecution Insights