DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “power consuming components” in Claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For the purposes of evaluating prior art with respect to patentability, the Examiner has interpreted the claimed redundant power supply units of Claims 4-5 and 12-13 as being part of the claimed one or more power supply units of Claims 1 and 9, and thus also comprising circuitry.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. See MPEP 2111.04(II). "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “the rules-based framework includes a list, of power supply types and input voltages, that allows the system power cap to be determined for mixed power supply configurations of the computer system” in Lines 14-16. The use of the term “allows” renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear, as the term “allows” includes anything and everything that does not explicitly prohibit the system power cap to be determined for mixed power supply configurations of the computer system. For the purposes of evaluating prior art with respect to patentability, the Examiner has interpreted “allows” as “enables”.
Dependent claims inherit the indefiniteness of their parent claims and are rejected under the same reasoning.
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.
Claim(s) 1-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0320322 to Green et al. (“Green”) and US Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0072754 to Doblar et al. (“Doblar”).
In reference to Claim 1, Green discloses a method for power supply configuration based power capping (See Abstract and Paragraphs 43-44 and 49), the method comprising: determining, by a power management controller (See Figure 2 Numbers 220 and 230a-230d and Paragraph 28) of a computing system (See Figure 2 Number 200 and Paragraph 25) that includes one or more power supply units (See Figure 2 Numbers 202a-202d and Paragraph 25), power supply configuration information for the computing system, including a total number of the power supply units (See Paragraphs 47 and 60), a power supply type for each of the power supply units (See Paragraph 48 [power supply capacity value]), and a power supply input voltage for each of the power supply units (See Paragraphs 29-30), wherein the computing system comprises processing circuitry (See Paragraphs 6, 25-26, 34, and 43); and wherein the one or more power supply units comprise circuitry (See Paragraphs 25 and 48); determining, by the power management controller based on the power supply configuration information, a system power cap for the computing system (See Paragraphs 47-52); and controlling, by the power management controller, power consumption of the computing system based on the system power cap (See Paragraphs 50-51) ; wherein the power supplies are of mixed power supply types (See Figure 3 and Paragraph 17). However, Green does not explicitly disclose generating a warning based on at least one of: mixed power supply types are not allowed or supported or mixed power supply input voltages that are not allowed or supported. Doblar discloses one or more power supply units (See Figure 1A Numbers 110A and 110B) of mixed types (See Paragraph 17); and generating a warning based on mixed power supply input voltages that are not allowed or supported (See Paragraphs 83-85 and 112 [a fault warning signal is generated when a power input feed to a power supply unit is lost and 0 volts are being input; a 0 volt input voltage is not allowed or supported for operation].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Green using the loss of power supply input warning of Doblar, resulting in the invention of Claim 1, in order to yield the predictable result of allowing the system to bring a standby power supply unit into active mode when an unsupported 0 volt input is provided to a power supply unit due to the loss of a power input feed to the power supply unit, thus reducing energy consumption (See Paragraphs 1-2, 85, and 112 of Doblar).
In reference to Claim 2, Green and Doblar disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Green further discloses determining, by the power management controller based on the power supply type for each of the power supply units, a system level power supply type, wherein the system power cap for the computing system is determined based on the system level power supply type (See Paragraphs 48-49).
In reference to Claim 3, Green and Doblar disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Green further discloses determining, by the power management controller based on the power supply input voltage for each of the power supply units, a system level power supply input voltage, wherein the system power cap for the computing system is determined based on the system power supply input voltage (See Paragraphs 29-30 and 49-50).
In reference to Claim 4, Green and Doblar disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Green further discloses that the system power cap comprises a redundant power limit when the computing system includes one or more redundant power supply units (See Paragraphs 48 and 55-57).
In reference to Claim 5, Green and Doblar disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Green further discloses that the system power cap comprises a non-redundant power limit when the computing system does not include a redundant power supply unit (See Paragraphs 47-49 and 55 [system can operate with only a single power supply unit and no redundancy when there are two power supply units and one is turned off or fails]).
In reference to Claim 6, Green and Doblar disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Green further discloses that further comprising: determining, by the power management controller after a power supply unit has been added to or removed from the computing system, an updated version of the power supply configuration information (See Paragraphs 50-53 and 60).
In reference to Claim 7, Green and Doblar disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 6 above. Green further discloses that determining, by the power management controller based on the updated version of the power supply configuration information, an updated system power cap for the computing system (See Paragraphs 49, 51, and 55); and controlling, by the power management controller, power consumption of the computing system based on the updated system power cap (See Paragraphs 50-52).
In reference to Claim 8, Green and Doblar disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Green further discloses that determining whether the power supply configuration information indicates an invalid power supply configuration; and generating a warning indicating an invalid power supply configuration (See Paragraphs 60-61).
In reference to Claim 9, Green discloses an apparatus comprising: a processing device comprising processing circuitry (See Paragraphs 37-40); and memory operatively coupled to the processing device, wherein the memory stores computer program instructions that, when executed, cause the processing device to (See Paragraphs 37-40): determine power supply configuration information for a computing system (See Figure 2 Number 200 and Paragraph 25), including a total number of power supply units (See Figure 2 Numbers 202a-202d and Paragraphs 25, 47, and 60), a power supply type for each of the power supply units (See Paragraph 48 [power supply capacity value]), and a power supply input voltage for each of the power supply units (See Paragraphs 29-30), wherein the computing system comprises processing circuitry (See Paragraphs 6, 25-26, 34, and 43); wherein the power supply units comprise circuitry (See Paragraphs 25 and 48); determine, based on the power supply configuration information, a system power cap for the computing system (See Paragraphs 47-52), wherein the system power cap is determined, using a rules-based framework (See Figure 4 and Paragraphs 47-52 [flowchart process is a rules-based framework]), for the computer system operating in a redundant mode (See Paragraphs 18, 48, and 55 [more than one converter is available]) and operating in a non-redundant mode (See Paragraphs 18, 48, and 55 [more than one converter is not available]); and controlling, by the power management controller, power consumption of the computing system based on the system power cap (See Paragraphs 50-51); wherein the power supplies are of mixed power supply types (See Figure 3 and Paragraph 17). However, Green does not explicitly disclose generating a warning based on at least one of: mixed power supply types are not allowed or supported or mixed power supply input voltages that are not allowed or supported. Doblar discloses one or more power supply units (See Figure 1A Numbers 110A and 110B) of mixed types (See Paragraph 17); and generating a warning based on mixed power supply input voltages that are not allowed or supported (See Paragraphs 83-85 and 112 [a fault warning signal is generated when a power input feed to a power supply unit is lost and 0 volts are being input; a 0 volt input voltage is not allowed or supported for operation].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Green using the loss of power supply input warning of Doblar, resulting in the invention of Claim 9, in order to yield the predictable result of allowing the system to bring a standby power supply unit into active mode when an unsupported 0 volt input is provided to a power supply unit due to the loss of a power input feed to the power supply unit, thus reducing energy consumption (See Paragraphs 1-2, 85, and 112 of Doblar).
In reference to Claim 10, Green and Doblar disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 9 above. Green further discloses that the memory further stores computer program instructions that, when executed, cause the processing device to: determine, based on the power supply type for each of the power supply units, a system level power supply type, wherein the system power cap for the computing system is determined based on the system level power supply type (See Paragraphs 48-49).
In reference to Claim 11, Green and Doblar disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 9 above. Green further discloses the memory further stores computer program instructions that, when executed, cause the processing device to: determine, based on the power supply input voltage for each of the power supply units, a system level power supply input voltage, wherein the system power cap for the computing system is determined based on the system power supply input voltage (See Paragraphs 29-30 and 49-50).
In reference to Claim 12, Green and Doblar disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 9 above. Green further discloses that the system power cap comprises a redundant power limit when the computing system includes one or more redundant power supply units (See Paragraphs 48 and 55-57).
In reference to Claim 13, Green and Doblar disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 9 above. Green further discloses that the system power cap comprises a non-redundant power limit when the computing system does not include a redundant power supply unit (See Paragraphs 47-49 and 55 [system can operate with only a single power supply unit and no redundancy when there are two power supply units and one is turned off or fails]).
In reference to Claim 14, Green and Doblar disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Green further discloses that the memory further stores computer program instructions that, when executed, cause the processing device to: determine, after a power supply unit has been added to or removed from the computing system, an updated version of the power supply configuration information (See Paragraphs 50-53 and 60).
In reference to Claim 15, Green and Doblar disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 14 above. Green further discloses that the memory further stores computer program instructions that, when executed, cause the processing device to: determine, based on the updated version of the power supply configuration information, an updated system power cap for the computing system (See Paragraphs 49, 51, and 55); and control power consumption of the computing system based on the updated system power cap (See Paragraphs 50-52).
Claims 16 and 21 recite limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 1 and are rejected under similar reasoning. Green further discloses a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium (See Paragraphs 37-40), as in Claim 16; and one or more power consuming components (See Paragraphs 2-4 and 21), as in Claim 21.
Claims 17 and 22 recite limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 2 and are rejected under similar reasoning.
Claims 18 and 23 recite limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 3 and are rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 19 recites limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 4 and are rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 20 recites limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 5 and are rejected under similar reasoning.
In reference to Claim 24, Green discloses a method for power supply configuration based power capping (See Abstract and Paragraphs 43-44 and 49), the method comprising: determining, by a power management controller (See Figure 2 Numbers 220 and 230a-230d and Paragraph 28) of a computing system (See Figure 2 Number 200 and Paragraph 25) that includes one or more power supply units (See Figure 2 Numbers 202a-202d and Paragraph 25), power supply configuration information for the computing system, including a total number of the power supply units (See Paragraphs 47 and 60), a power supply type for each of the power supply units (See Paragraph 48 [power supply capacity value]), and a power supply input voltage for each of the power supply units (See Paragraphs 29-30), wherein the computing system comprises processing circuitry (See Paragraphs 6, 25-26, 34, and 43); and wherein the one or more power supply units comprise circuitry (See Paragraphs 25 and 48); determining, by the power management controller based on the power supply configuration information, a system power cap for the computing system (See Paragraphs 47-52), wherein the system power cap is determined, using a rules-based framework (See Figure 4 and Paragraphs 47-52 [flowchart process is a rules-based framework]), and wherein the rules-based framework includes a list, of power supply types and input voltages, that allows the system power cap to be determined for mixed power supply configurations of the computer system (See Figure 3 and Paragraphs 17-18, 29-30, 33, and 48 [input power history, including input voltage, and power capacity, which is a power supply type, is stored and used in determining the system power cap; a history log is a list in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term]); controlling, by the power management controller, power consumption of the computing system based on the system power cap (See Paragraphs 50-51); updating, by the power management controller in response to a power supply unit being added to or removed from the computing system, the system power cap (See Paragraphs 50-53 and 60); wherein the power supplies are of mixed power supply types (See Figure 3 and Paragraph 17). However, Green does not explicitly disclose generating a warning based on at least one of: mixed power supply types are not allowed or supported or mixed power supply input voltages that are not allowed or supported. Doblar discloses one or more power supply units (See Figure 1A Numbers 110A and 110B) of mixed types (See Paragraph 17); and generating a warning based on mixed power supply input voltages that are not allowed or supported (See Paragraphs 83-85 and 112 [a fault warning signal is generated when a power input feed to a power supply unit is lost and 0 volts are being input; a 0 volt input voltage is not allowed or supported for operation].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Green using the loss of power supply input warning of Doblar, resulting in the invention of Claim 1, in order to yield the predictable result of allowing the system to bring a standby power supply unit into active mode when an unsupported 0 volt input is provided to a power supply unit due to the loss of a power input feed to the power supply unit, thus reducing energy consumption (See Paragraphs 1-2, 85, and 112 of Doblar).
It is noted that Claim 24 is a method claim reciting the contingent limitation “in response to…”. As indicated above, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed by the prior art.
In reference to Claim 25, Green and Doblar disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 24 above. Green further discloses determining, by the power management controller based on the power supply type for each of the power supply units, a system level power supply type, wherein the system power cap for the computing system is determined based on the system level power supply type (See Paragraphs 48-49).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Claim 21 recites sufficient structure to not invoke 35 USC §112(f) (See Page 11). In response, the Examiner notes that no amendments were made to Claim 21 that the claimed power consuming components comprise circuitry, nor was Claim 21 or this specific limitation discussed in the interview. Thus, the term “power consuming components” remains interpreted as invoking 35 USC §112(f).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art consist solely of statements that the claims were amended based on the interview (See Page 12). However, no agreement was reached in the interview, and Applicant has failed to provide arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references (37 CFR 1.111(b)), and the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made and must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections (37 CFR 1.111(c)). Applicant is advised that future failures to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.111 may result in a reply being held as non-responsive (MPEP §714.03).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J CLEARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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 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.
/THOMAS J. CLEARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights