The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are presented for examination
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claims 1, 3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe (US Patent Application 20150112891).
As per claim 1, Watanabe teaches a power consumption management device [device shown in figure 8] comprising one or more processors [101, fig. 8] configured to perform operations comprising:
collecting performance information and power consumption of a server [0035, 0053, figure 3, as shown in figure 3 in step 1, the log information includes power consumption information as well as memory and CPU/GPU utilization information].
selecting items of the performance information serving as candidates for explanatory variables in a power consumption estimation model in which items of the performance information are used as the explanatory variables and the power consumption is used as an objective variable [0089, 0170-0172, as pointed out objective time information data is acquired where corresponding to plurality of explanatory variables for explaining the objective variable, where a selection unit configured to select, based on the parameter of the probability model having been obtained by the learning].
wherein the selecting excludes the items whose value changes are less than or equal to a predetermined value among the items of the performance information and further excludes the items using a multivariate analysis method to select the items [0068, 0136, 0173-0174, as pointed out the selection unit disregard unnecessary data. For example, the information processor 1 can select (automatically) only log information required for power estimation. Therefore, the person does not need to determine or select the kind of data to be acquired which is used for estimation of power consumption, and a burden on the person can be reduced. After one cycle of the learning process has been finished, the unnecessary log information does not need to be acquired in subsequent data collection process, model parameter learning process, and power consumption estimation process].
As per claim 3, Watanabe teaches the multivariate analysis method is a stepwise method, and the selecting includes selecting the items using the stepwise method with the selected and remaining items as the explanatory variables and the power consumption as the objective variable [0141-0142, where multiple pieces of the log data is selected like Bt and Dx where the deltas are calculated to provide a result].
As per claims 7-8, they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in the rejected claims above. Therefore, claims 7-8 are also anticipated by Watanabe for the same reasons set forth in the rejected claims above.
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 of this title, 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US Patent Application 20150112891) in the view of Matsuo (US Patent Application 20190073287).
As per claim 2, Watanabe does teach one or more processors are configured to perform the multivariate analysis method to calculate calculating a partial correlation coefficient of an item pair, and the selecting excludes one of the item pair when the partial correlation coefficient of the item pair is equal to or greater than a predetermined value.
However, Matsuo teaches one or more processors are configured to perform the multivariate analysis method to calculate calculating a partial correlation coefficient of an item pair, and the selecting excludes one of the item pair when the partial correlation coefficient of the item pair is equal to or greater than a predetermined value [0106-0107, fig. 21-22, as pointed out the correlation of the values are determined where values or result is based or specific condition. For example, correlation coefficient R.sup.2=0.9835, and thus a linear relationship is satisfied. However, the linear relationship is not satisfied for all cases. FIG. 23 is a diagram illustrating a relationship between a performance value and an operating frequency for a case where the application A1 is executed].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the design of Watanabe to include the method of Matsuo to provide a function to perform correction of the data and make determination of the result.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US Patent Application 20150112891) in the view of Saneyoshi (Japanese Patent JP2014137322A).
As per claim 4, Watanabe does not teach the operations further comprise generating the power consumption estimation model, wherein, in the model, which the items selected and the power consumption collected, or the items further reduced from the selected items in accordance with a device type of the server or a service on the server are used as the explanatory variables, and the power consumption is used as the objective variable.
However, Saneyoshi teaches power consumption management device according to claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise generating comprising a model generation unit configured to generate the power consumption estimation model, wherein, in the model, which the items selected by the selection unit from the performance information and the power consumption collected by the collection unit, or the items further reduced from the selected items in accordance with a device type of the server or a service on the server are used as the explanatory variables, and the power consumption is used as the objective variable [0024-0025, select performance power consumption based on the device type and device manufacturer].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the design of Watanabe to include the method of Saneyoshi to provide a way to perform pawer estimation based on the device type.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sato (US 20210041487) teaches power consumption estimation device.
Suzuki (US 20200379533) teaches storage medium job power estimation method and job power estimating device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VOLVICK DEROSE whose telephone number is (571)272-6260. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached on 571.270.1640. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VOLVICK DEROSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights