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 .
Drawings
The drawings as submitted by Applicant on 05/13/2024 have been accepted.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-33 are pending in the instant application. No claims have been added. Claims 1-10 and 18-20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-33 have been added. Claims 11,12, and 15 have been amended. Claims 11-17 and 21-33 are rejected herein. The rejection of the pending claims is hereby made non-final.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant has elected claims 11-17 without traverse.
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.
6. Claims 11-17 and 21-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 11-17 and 21-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the MPEP 2106.04 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance analysis which follows.
Under the MPEP 2106.04 step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a system (claims 11-17 and 21-27) and a method (claims 28-33) (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Under the MPEP 2106 step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of adjusting chilling equipment settings by:
providing an interactive interface configured to guide input of a relevant equipment parameter, a relevant output condition, an identification of a relevant item of equipment of, and a request type by a user;
generating an input query for a large language model based on the input of the identification of the relevant item of equipment, the relevant equipment parameter, the relevant output condition, and the request type; and
executing an automated action in a completion from the large language model generated in response to the input query, wherein the automated action is related to the relevant item of equipment and based on the request type.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated MPEP 2106 categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., receiving user input to modify machine settings).
Under the MPEP 2106.04 step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the MPEP 2106.04 step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “a plurality of chillers,” and “a processing system” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.). Independent claims 21 and 28 are nearly identical to independent claim 11 and so the analysis for claim 11 also applies to claims 21 and 28.
Dependent claims 12-17, 22-27, and 29-33 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2106.04 analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea). Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 11-17 and 21-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cook (US 2024/0103960).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art discloses a system comprising: a plurality of chillers (see at least paragraph [0033] to Cook, chiller units for cooling down the data center); and a processing system programmed to: provide an interactive interface configured to guide input of a relevant chiller parameter (see at least paragraph [0055] to Cook, wherein a user wanting to utilize a portion of the resources 614 can submit a request that is received to an interface layer 608 of the provider environment 606. The interface layer can include application programming interfaces (APIs) or other exposed interfaces enabling a user to submit requests to the provider environment), a relevant output condition, an identification of a relevant chiller of the plurality of chillers (see at least paragraph [0035] to Cook, wherein a user may be able to see a status of one or more components of a chiller system, as well as one or more components of an electrical system powering the chiller system and computer components within the data center), and a request type by a user (see at least paragraph [0053] to Cook, wherein the resource provider environment 606 can include any appropriate components for receiving requests and returning information or performing actions in response to those requests. As an example, the provider environment might include Web servers and/or application servers for receiving and processing requests, then returning data, Web pages, video, audio, or other such content or information in response to the request); generate an input query for a large language model (see at least paragraph [0050] to Cook) based on the input of the identification of the relevant chiller, the relevant chiller parameter, the relevant output condition, and the request type (see at least paragraph [0056 to Cook, wherein the user can receive a resource identifier, specific address, or other such information that can enable the client device 602 to communicate with an allocated resource without having to communicate with the resource manager 610); and execute an automated action in a completion from output a recommendation relating to the relevant chiller in accordance with the request (see at least [0047] to Cook, wherein one or more components of the system 300 may be automatically controlled, such as through use of artificial intelligence techniques. For example, one or more neural networks may be utilized to analyze operating conditions of various components over time, and perform or otherwise recommend corrective actions to maintain targeted operating condition) type as output of the large language model (see at least paragraph [0013] to Cook, wherein at least one neural network can be trained to recognize environmental changes and behaviors to infer a cause of changes and recommend corrective actions to be taken. As used herein, “artificial intelligence” may include, but is not limited to, machine learning, natural language processing, neural networks, random forest models, and other such algorithms or models) generated in response to by using the input query, wherein the automated action is related to the relevant chiller and based on the request type as an input to the LLM (see at least paragraph [0014] to Cook, wherein the system can be controlled automatically, without human intervention. For example, the system may use artificial intelligence or threshold management techniques to determine when to automatically cut power to one or more components of the system, or determine to change operating conditions of one or more components to optimize energy savings while maintaining suitable operations).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art discloses the system of Claim 11, wherein the recommendation is automated action comprises adjusting a setting of the relevant chiller, the processing system is programmed to output the recommendation by providing the setting to the relevant chiller, and the relevant chiller is configured operate in accordance with the setting (see at least paragraph [0041] to Cook, wherein the system automatically adjusted a flow rate of one of the components within the environment. In accordance with an example embodiment, flow rate may be adjusted in response to the system determining that a corrective action is needed for the component).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art discloses the system of Claim 11, wherein the request type is at least one of a request for a service recommendation, a request for a product recommendation, or a request for virtual assistance with technical service (see at least paragraph [0022] to Cook et al, wherein one or more maintenance recommendations may be provided to a user in advance of a failure using data such as the age of one or more components or learned behaviors of the one or more components).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art discloses the system of Claim 11, wherein the relevant output condition is a supply water temperature of water to be output by the relevant chiller of the plurality of chillers (see at least paragraph [0046] to Cook, wherein reports may include metrics related to the operation of a chiller unit within a data center, such as temperature, pressure, energy efficiency, emissions and carbon reporting, among other such metrics).
Regarding claim 15, the prior art discloses the system of Claim 11, wherein the processing system is configured to provide the interactive interface by generating conversational prompts based on natural language inputs by a user (see at least paragraph [0055] to Cook, wherein a user wanting to utilize a portion of the resources 614 can submit a request that is received to an interface layer 608 of the provider environment 606. The interface layer can include application programming interfaces (APIs) or other exposed interfaces enabling a user to submit requests to the provider environment), the conversational prompts generated using a generative artificial intelligence model and configured to prompt the user to input the relevant equipment type, the relevant equipment chiller parameter, the relevant output condition, and the request type of the user (see at least paragraph [0058] to Cook, wherein the interface layer also can include at least one API service layer that in one embodiment consists of stateless, replicated servers which process the externally-facing user APIs. The interface layer can be responsible for Web service front end features such as authenticating users based on credentials, authorizing the user, throttling user requests to the API servers, validating user input, and marshalling or unmarshalling requests and responses).
Regarding claim 16, the prior art discloses the system of Claim 15, comprising a user interface device coupled to one of the plurality of chillers and configured to display the conversational prompts to the user (see at least paragraph [0033] to Cook, wherein data center environment, water management may make up a significant portion of operations because water may be used in chiller units for cooling down the data center. Therefore, according to an example, a platform for monitoring a data center may include a module for water management, where site water consumption and discharge may be calculated and analyzed to provide insights for water efficiency within the system).
Regarding claim 17, the prior art discloses the system of Claim 11, wherein the processing system is positioned locally on one of the plurality of chillers (see at least paragraph [0047] to Cook, wherein A controller may also control other functions such as one or more operations of a chiller unit 312 or one or more fan speeds 314, among other such components. A technician may utilize a centralized platform according to one or more embodiments described herein to locally or remotely monitor and control one or more of these components).
Regarding claim 22, the prior art discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the automated action comprises at least one of: adjusting operation of the relevant item of equipment in accordance with the completion; causing maintenance to be performed on the relevant item of equipment; executing a text procedure on the relevant item of equipment; or causing notification of an alert or root cause of a fault relating to the relevant item of equipment (see at least paragraph [0014] to Cook, wherein the system can be controlled automatically, without human intervention. For example, the system may use artificial intelligence or threshold management techniques to determine when to automatically cut power to one or more components of the system, or determine to change operating conditions of one or more components to optimize energy savings while maintaining suitable operations).
Regarding claim 23, the prior art discloses the system of Claim 21, wherein the completion includes a setting of the relevant item of equipment, the processing system is programmed to communicate the completion by providing the setting to the relevant item of equipment, and the relevant item of equipment is configured operate in accordance with the setting (see at least paragraph [0015] to Cook, wherein one or more components within a data center may be controlled remotely through the platform, such that a technician working from a remote location may be able to adjust conditions such as temperature and humidity of the data center, or a fan speed of a fan wall unit operating within the data center).
Regarding claim 33, the prior art discloses the method of Claim 28, wherein the request type is a request to achieve a target energy reduction for the relevant item of equipment (see at least paragraph [0013] to Cook, wherein artificial intelligence may be utilized to generate suggestions and recommendations to save energy).
Claims 21 and 24-32 each contain recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, are likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM EST.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
The following are suggested formats for either a Certificate of Mailing or Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). The certification may be included with all correspondence concerning this application or proceeding to establish a date of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). Proper use of this procedure will result in such communication being considered as timely if the established date is within the required period for reply. The Certificate should be signed by the individual actually depositing or transmitting the correspondence or by an individual who, upon information and belief, expects the correspondence to be mailed or transmitted in the normal course of business by another no later than the date indicated.
Certificate of Mailing
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
on __________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
________________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________
Certificate of Transmission by Facsimile
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Fax No. (___)_____ -_________ on _____________. (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Certificate of Transmission via USPTO Patent Electronic Filing System
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being transmitted via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent electronic filing system to the USPTO
on _____________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Please refer to 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4), 1.6(d) and 1.8(a)(2) for filing limitations concerning transmissions via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, facsimile transmissions and mailing, respectively.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
