DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the application filed 05/10/2024.
Claims 1-25 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statements (filed 05/10/2024 and 12/08/2025) have been received, entered into the record, and considered.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed 05/10/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
4. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The abstract is objected to because it does not comply with MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it appears to repeat information given in the title. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “identifying…in a data center…a location of an individual in the data center” and “modifying… one or more environmental parameters at the location, including modifying operation of the one or more computing devices in the data center based on the location of the individual in the data center relative to the one or more computing devices” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “by a computing device operatively coupled to one or more computing devices” and “based on data from one or more sensors” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements 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 of “by a computing device operatively coupled to one or more computing devices” and “based on data from one or more sensors” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the one or more environmental parameters comprise a wet bulb global temperature (WBGT) for the individual” is merely the use of a computer /instructions running on the computer to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the one or more environmental parameters comprise a contact temperature for the one or more computing devices” is merely the use of a computer /instructions running on the computer to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “modifying the operation of the one or more computing devices in the data center comprises redistributing one or more workloads across the one or more computing devices” recites further mental process. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “modifying the operation of the one or more computing devices in the data center comprises modifying a fan speed of the one or more computing devices in the data center” recites further mental process. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “modifying operation of one or more computer room air conditioning (CRAC) units based on the location of the individual” recites further mental process. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “the one or more environmental parameters comprise a noise level” is merely the use of a computer /instructions running on the computer to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “providing a visual indicator to a device associated with the individual based on a degree to which one or more environmental parameter targets are met” recites further mental process. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the device facilitates at least one of measuring the one or more environmental parameters or identifying the location of the individual” recites further mental process. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations “identifying another location in the data center associated with the individual” and “modifying the one or more environmental parameters at the other location, including modifying operation of one or more computing devices in the data center based on the other location relative to the one or more computing devices” recite further mental process. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim does not recite any mental process, however, the additional element “the other location comprises an updated location of the individual” merely defines the location being identified, thus amounts to identifying data which is insignificant extra solution activity. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the claim does not recite any mental process, however, the additional element “the other location comprises a predicted location of the individual” merely defines the location being identified, thus amounts to identifying data which is insignificant extra solution activity. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “providing a recommended work duration at the location” recites further mental process. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations “identifying…a location of an individual in the data center” and “modify one or more environmental parameters at the location, wherein, to modify the one or more environmental parameters… modify operation of one or more computing devices in the data center based on the location of the individual in the data center relative to the one or more computing devices” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “a processing device”, “memory operatively coupled to the processing device”, “computer program instructions”, and “based on data from one or more sensors” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements 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 of “a processing device”, “memory operatively coupled to the processing device”, “computer program instructions”, and “based on data from one or more sensors” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 15-24, the claims correspond to claims 2-11. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 25, the limitations “identifying…a location of an individual in the data center” and “modify one or more environmental parameters at the location, wherein, to modify the one or more environmental parameters… modify operation of one or more computing devices in the data center based on the location of the individual in the data center relative to the one or more computing devices” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “a computer program product”, “a computer readable storage medium”, “computer program instructions”, and “based on data from one or more sensors” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements 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 of “a computer program product”, “a computer readable storage medium”, “computer program instructions”, and “based on data from one or more sensors” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Ashok et al. (US 20140372595) in view of Lingle et al. (US 20230039961).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
The Ashok reference was cited by Applicant in the IDS filed 12/08/2025.
As to claim 1:
Ashok teaches a method ([0016]: a method, system and computer program product for managing hardware components) comprising:
identifying, by a computing device operatively coupled to one or more computing devices in a data center, a location of an individual in the data center ([0016]: a hardware component's actual location may be determined based on wireless signals received from devices at fixed locations. In another example, a distance from a hardware component to a detected hardware component may be based on relative signal strength. Each hardware component in the data center may then transmit such identification and location information to an administrative server. By having each hardware component "self-locate" components within their communication range and having those neighboring hardware components locate hardware components within their communication range (which may be outside the range of the first hardware component locating its neighboring hardware components), an overall inventory of the hardware components in the data center can be compiled by the administrative server, including each hardware component's current actual and relative; [0068]: In step 704, each hardware component in the data center transmits the identification and location information obtained in steps 702, 703 to administrative server 302; [0069:] In step 705, administrative server 302 receives the identification and location information transmitted by each hardware component in step 704. As a result of each hardware component in the data center transmitting such information to administrative server 302, the overall inventory of the hardware components in the data center can be known by administrative server 302, including each hardware component's current actual and relative location (relative to other hardware components). In this manner, a hardware component can be more easily located after being relocated in a data center); and
modifying, by the computing device, one or more environmental parameters at the location, including modifying operation of the one or more computing devices in the data center based on the location of the individual in the data center relative to the one or more computing devices ([0016]: Since the administrative server has knowledge of the identification and location of the hardware components in the data center, the administrative server will be able to balance a workload across these identified hardware components based on their location. That is, the administrative server will be able to balance a workload across these hardware components in the data center based on location dependent policies (e.g., balancing heat distribution across the data center, consolidating workloads to co-located systems, balancing network hops and available bandwidth across the data center; [0070]: Since administrative server 302 has knowledge of the identity and location of the hardware components in the data center, administrative server 302 will be able to balance a workload across these hardware components based on their location in step 706. A "workload," as used herein, refers to the amount of processing that a hardware component has been given to do at a given time. In one embodiment, the workload is balanced across the hardware components in the data center based on one or more of the following location based or location dependent policies: balancing heat distribution across the data center, consolidating workloads to co-located systems (e.g., systems located in close proximity to each other), and balancing network hops and available bandwidth across the data center. For example, the policy of balancing heat distribution across the data center involves balancing the thermal output of the hardware components. As a result, the workloads are rebalanced in light of this policy so as to provide optimal heat output or a reduction in the number of "hot areas" that cannot be cooled sufficiently by the cooling systems of the data center. By having knowledge of the identity and location of the hardware components, administrative server 302 will be able to optimally balance the workloads so as to intelligently balance the thermal output of the hardware components. Furthermore, balancing a workload includes balancing a "pattern" of virtual machines used to perform the workload, where the pattern of virtual machines may reside on multiple hardware components. For example, in balancing a workload across the hardware components in the data center, the virtual machines 508 of the "pattern" of the workload (the "pattern" of a workload may refer to the collection of virtual machines 508 on compute blades 403 used to perform the required processing of the workload) may be intelligently balanced based on policies that are location based (e.g., consolidation). By having knowledge of the identity and location of the hardware components in the data center, administrative server 302 will be able to more appropriately balance the pattern of virtual machines 508 (e.g., increase/decrease the number of virtual machines 508 performing the required processing of the workload on a particular compute blade 403 based on the location of compute blade 403 with respect to the location of other compute blades 403 with virtual machines 508 performing the required processing of the workload)).
Ashok, however, does not explicitly teach the following additional limitations:
Lingle teaches identifying a location of an individual based on data from one or more sensors ([0263]: In the example of FIG. 24, the cloud computing system 2402 is also in communication with a security system 2416. As shown, the security system 2416 includes the security sensors 2306 and security panels 2304 described above with respect to the data center 2300. In some examples, the security system 2416 also includes security memory circuitry configured to store security data obtained from the security sensors 2306, security panels 2304, and/or other security measures of the security system 2416. In some examples, the security data may include security sensor data (e.g., security film, images, videos, measurements, related timestamps, location data, etc.). In some examples, the security data may include security panel data (e.g., identification/credential information of individuals who attempted to, failed at, and/or succeeded at accessing the data center 2300 and/or security panels 2304, associated location and/or timestamp information, etc.)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ashok with Lingle because it would have provided the enhanced capability for sensing, measuring, recording, and reporting environmental parameters and conditions in facilities such as data centers.
As to claim 2:
Ashok teaches the one or more environmental parameters comprise a wet bulb global temperature (WBGT) for the individual ([0016] and [0070]).
As to claim 3:
Ashok teaches the one or more environmental parameters comprise a contact temperature for the one or more computing devices ([0016] and [0070]).
As to claim 4:
Ashok teaches modifying the operation of the one or more computing devices in the data center comprises redistributing one or more workloads across the one or more computing devices ([0050-0051] and [0062-0063]).
As to claim 5:
Ashok does not explicitly teach, Lingle teaches modifying the operation of the one or more computing devices in the data center comprises modifying a fan speed of the one or more computing devices in the data center ([0301]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ashok with Lingle because it would have provided the enhanced capability for sensing, measuring, recording, and reporting environmental parameters and conditions in facilities such as data centers.
As to claim 6:
Ashok teaches modifying the one or more environmental parameters further comprises modifying operation of one or more computer room air conditioning (CRAC) units based on the location of the individual ([0016] and [0070]).
As to claim 7:
Ashok teaches the one or more environmental parameters comprise a noise level ([0016] and [0070]).
As to claim 8:
Ashok does not explicitly teach, Lingle teaches providing a visual indicator to a device associated with the individual based on a degree to which one or more environmental parameter targets are met ([0021] and [0178-0181]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ashok with Lingle because it would have provided the enhanced capability for sensing, measuring, recording, and reporting environmental parameters and conditions in facilities such as data centers.
As to claim 9:
Ashok teaches the device facilitates at least one of measuring the one or more environmental parameters or identifying the location of the individual ([0005], [0016], [0041], and [0050-0051]).
As to claim 10:
Ashok teaches identifying another location in the data center associated with the individual; and modifying the one or more environmental parameters at the other location, including modifying operation of one or more computing devices in the data center based on the other location relative to the one or more computing devices ([0016], [0041], and [0050-0051]).
As to claim 11:
Ashok teaches the other location comprises an updated location of the individual ([0016], [0061-0062] and [0069]).
As to claim 12:
Ashok teaches the other location comprises a predicted location of the individual ([0015-0016] and [0066-0067]).
As to claim 13:
Ashok does not explicitly teach, Lingle teaches providing a recommended work duration at the location ([0021]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ashok with Lingle because it would have provided the enhanced capability for sensing, measuring, recording, and reporting environmental parameters and conditions in facilities such as data centers.
As to claims 14-24:
Refer to the discussion of claims 1-11 above, respectively, for rejections. Claims 14-24 are the same as claims 1-11, except claims 14-24 are apparatus claims and claims 1-11 are method claims.
As to claim 25:
Refer to the discussion of claim 1 above for rejection. Claim 25 is the same as claim 1, except claim 25 is a computer program product claim and claim 1 is a method claim.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN H. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3765. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday from 9:00AM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LEWIS BULLOCK, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3759. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/VAN H NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights