DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 7/2/2024 for application number 18/726,264. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, and claims.
Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
Drawings
Examiner contends that the drawings filed 7/2/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “generating, by the computing device, a collective power saving strategy corresponding to the plurality of computing devices based on the power consumption characteristics data”.
The limitation of generating a collective power saving strategy corresponding to the plurality of computing devices based on the power consumption characteristics data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “by a computing device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a computing device” language, “generating a collective power saving strategy corresponding to the plurality of computing devices based on the power consumption characteristics data” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally thinking which computing device he or she should turn off based on the power consumption of each computing device. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites using a computing device to perform the generating step. The computing device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic component performing a generic computer function of generating a strategy) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Additionally, the limitation of “obtaining, by a computing device, power consumption characteristics data corresponding respectively to each of a plurality of computing devices associated with a user” is an insignificant pre-solution activity because it is mere data gathering at a high level of generality. The limitation of “the collective power saving strategy comprising one or more power saving operations that, when implemented, conserve a total amount of power used by the plurality of computing devices” is merely an application of the determined strategy. The remaining limitation of “instructing, by the computing device, one or more computing devices of the plurality of computing devices to perform at least one of the one or more power saving operations” is merely applying the generated strategy using generic computer component. Such limitations are merely additional elements that are incidental to the primary process that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and are insignificant extra-solution activity or they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do 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 element of using a computing device to generate the power strategy amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the additional element of obtaining power consumption characteristics data is an insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering as discussed above, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional function or insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec). The additional elements of indicating the power saving strategy is to reduce power, and instructing computing devices to perform the strategy are mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites additional limitation of “wherein the power consumption characteristics data comprises at least one of: specification data descriptive of at least one of one or more hardware components or one or more application modules; operational state data descriptive of operational status of at least one of the one or more hardware components or the one or more application modules; or usage data indicative of at least one of historical usage, current usage, or anticipated usage”, but this limitation is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do 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 element of indicating the power consumption characteristics data include a particular type of information amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recite the additional elements of “receiving, by the computing device, user input data indicative of a relative priority ranking of each computing device of the plurality of computing devices;” and “generating, by the computing device, the collective power saving strategy based at least in part on the relative priority ranking”. Similar to the analysis described above for claim 1, the “generating, by the computing device, the collective power saving strategy based at least in part on the relative priority ranking” step is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, but for the “by a computing device” language, generating, by the computing device, the collective power saving strategy based at least in part on the relative priority ranking” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally thinking which computing device he or she should turn off based a priority of each computing device. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites using a computing device to perform the generating step. The computing device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic component performing a generic computer function of generating a strategy) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Additionally, the limitation of “receiving, by the computing device, user input data indicative of a relative priority ranking of each computing device of the plurality of computing devices” is an insignificant pre-solution activity because it is mere data gathering at a high level of generality. Such limitations are merely additional elements that are incidental to the primary process that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and are insignificant extra-solution activity because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is also directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do 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 element of using a computing device to generate the power strategy amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the additional element of receiving user input data is an insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering as discussed above, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional function or insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec). The additional element do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
It is noted that the claim recites “generating…based at least in part of the relative priority ranking”, but MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”. Thus even though there is a reliance on “relative priority ranking”, the “relative priority ranking” is part of the judicial exception of “generating…” and thus alone cannot provide the improvement.
Claim 4 recite the additional element of “wherein the plurality of computing devices comprises the computing device, wherein the computing device is designated as a primary computing device of the plurality of computing devices, and wherein the one or more power saving operations, when implemented, shift at least one power consuming operation from the computing device to one or more secondary computing devices of the plurality of computing devices” but this limitation is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do 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 element of designating a primary computing device and shifting to a secondary computing device amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites the additional element of “wherein the one or more power saving operations, when implemented, alter at least one of a power saving characteristic, a power saving characteristic level, or a configuration setting corresponding respectively to at least one computing device of the plurality of computing devices”, but this limitation is merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do 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 element of applying a technique of the power saving strategy on a computer amounts to mere implementation of an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 11 and 18 recite a similar concept to claim 1 with similarity in limitations. The analysis on these claims is similar to that of claim 1 and they reach the same conclusion for the same reasons. They are claims directed to an abstract idea (mental processes with insignificant extra-solution activity and applying on a computer) and do not provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 12 and 19 recite a similar concept to claim 3 with similarity in limitations. The analysis on these claims is similar to that of claim 3 and they reach the same conclusion for the same reasons. They are claims directed to an abstract idea (mental processes with insignificant extra-solution activity) and do not provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recite a similar concept to claim 4 with similarity in limitations. The analysis on these claims is similar to that of claim 4 and they reach the same conclusion for the same reasons. They are claims directed to an abstract idea (mental processes with generally linking to a particular technological environment or field of use) and do not provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 11, 14-15, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gatson et al. (hereinafter as Gatson) PGPUB 2016/0370843.
As per claim 1, Gatson teaches a method to provide multi-device power consumption optimization [0095-0096 and 0141], comprising:
obtaining, by a computing device, power consumption characteristics data corresponding respectively to each of a plurality of computing devices associated with a user [0039, 0054, 0061, 0070, and 0141-0142: (obtain power usage of several information handling systems associated with an enterprise (user))];
generating, by the computing device, a collective power saving strategy corresponding to the plurality of computing devices based on the power consumption characteristics data, the collective power saving strategy comprising one or more power saving operations that, when implemented, conserve a total amount of power used by the plurality of computing devices [0121 and 0134: (determines a policy to apply to a plurality of information handling systems and whether it will sufficiently lower power cost estimation to below an energy budget limitation amount) and 0145, 0147, 0156, FIG. 13 step 1335, FIG. 14b step 1455: (establish power policy instructions/determine power policy to limit component devices within the information handling systems); reducing power cost and limiting devices reduces the total amount of power used)]; and
instructing, by the computing device, one or more computing devices of the plurality of computing devices to perform at least one of the one or more power saving operations [0122, 0136, 0146, 0156, and 0158: (transmit power policy for limiting utilization to the other remote information handling systems in the group to perform the limiting operation)].
As per claim 2, Gatson teach the method to provide multi-device power consumption optimization of claim 1, wherein the power consumption characteristics data comprises at least one of: specification data descriptive of at least one of one or more hardware components or one or more application modules; operational state data descriptive of operational status of at least one of the one or more hardware components or the one or more application modules; or usage data indicative of at least one of historical usage, current usage, or anticipated usage [0035, 0054, 0061, and 0070: (record power usage of several information handling systems)].
As per claim 6, Gatson teaches the method to provide multi-device power consumption optimization of claim 1, wherein the one or more power saving operations, when implemented, alter at least one of a power saving characteristic, a power saving characteristic level, or a configuration setting corresponding respectively to at least one computing device of the plurality of computing devices [0135 and 0145: (restrict power charging or enter a reduced ACPI power state, or go to sleep quicker)].
As per claim 7, Gatson teach the method to provide multi-device power consumption optimization of claim 1, further comprising: monitoring, by the computing device, the power consumption characteristics data corresponding respectively to each of the plurality of computing devices [table 1 and 0054]; detecting, by the computing device, a defined event associated with at least one computing device of the plurality of computing devices [0071 and 0107: reporting triggered by an event or detection of new data (such as when budget limits are exceeded)]; and instructing, by the computing device, the one or more computing devices to perform at least one of the one or more power saving operations based on detection of the defined event [0118: (when budget limits are met or exceeded, power policies may be triggered, which causes reduction in power)].
As per claim 8, Gatson teach the method to provide multi-device power consumption optimization of claim 1, further comprising: learning, by the computing device, one or more usage patterns corresponding respectively to each of the plurality of computing devices, the one or more usage patterns being indicative of usage behavior of the user with respect to each of the plurality of computing devices [0080, 0142 and 0144-0146: (learn from statistical models)]; predicting, by the computing device, at least one of the one or more usage patterns [0060, 0085, and 0142: (predict future activity and energy consumption)]; and instructing, by the computing device, the one or more computing devices to perform at least one of the one or more power saving operations based on prediction of at least one of the one or more usage patterns [0145: (based on the probability, applies setting for limiting usage)].
Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale. Gatson further teaches a memory device to store computer-readable instructions thereon [0160: (computer-readable medium storing set of instructions)]; and at least one processing device configured for execution of the computer-readable instructions [0160: (execution by a processor)].
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 7 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 8 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 7 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3-4, 12-13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gatson et al. (hereinafter as Gatson) PGPUB 2016/0370843, and further in view of Brey et al. (hereinafter as Brey) PGPUB 2009/0125737.
As per claim 3, Gatson teach the method to provide multi-device power consumption optimization of claim 1.
Gatson does not explicitly teach further comprising: receiving, by the computing device, user input data indicative of a relative priority ranking of each computing device of the plurality of computing devices; and generating, by the computing device, the collective power saving strategy based at least in part on the relative priority ranking. Although Gatson describes a priority [0064 and 0097], Gatson does not explicitly describe a user providing a priority ranking to each of the devices.
Brey teaches power management of a group of devices by monitoring power consumption and applying group power limits. Brey is thus similar to Gatson because they teach managing power of a plurality of devices. Brey further teaches receiving, by the computing device, user input data indicative of a relative priority ranking of each computing device of the plurality of computing devices [0025: (user-selectable policy settings designate some server devices as higher priority and other server devices as lower priority or non-mission critical)]; and generating, by the computing device, the collective power saving strategy based at least in part on the relative priority ranking [0025, 0036, and 0041: (when sum of power limits equal the group power limit, power limit may be reduced for lower priority devices so that power limit can be increased for higher priority devices; thus power strategy is based on the priority ranking)].
The combination of Gatson with Brey leads to Gatson allowing user to specify priority of devices, and consequently, when power needs to be reduced to reduce energy costs, implementing a policy that will reduce power consumption of lower priority devices so that higher priority devices may continue to operate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Brey’s teachings of assigning priorities and reducing power to devices based on their priorities in Gatson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide priorities and reduce power based on priorities because it allows a user to designate which devices are of high importance to them and to delay or prevent throttling to such devices such that the high importance device can continue to operate while lower importance devices may be throttled or turned off, thus improving reliability.
As per claim 4, Gatson teaches the method to provide multi-device power consumption optimization of claim 1, wherein the plurality of computing devices comprises the computing device, wherein the computing device is designated as a primary computing device of the plurality of computing devices [0027: (intelligent energy management system that performs the determination of policy or power saving controls may be executed on servers 210, data centers 290, or client systems such as 220-222 and 224)].
Gatson does not explicitly teach and wherein the one or more power saving operations, when implemented, shift at least one power consuming operation from the computing device to one or more secondary computing devices of the plurality of computing devices.
Brey teaches power management of a group of devices by monitoring power consumption and applying group power limits. Brey is thus similar to Gatson because they teach managing power of a plurality of devices. Brey further teaches wherein the one or more power saving operations, when implemented, shift at least one power consuming operation from the computing device to one or more secondary computing devices of the plurality of computing devices [0030: migrating workload between devices]. Brey teaches the shifting of workload to another computing device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Brey’s teachings of moving workload to another device as a way to reduce power consumption in Gatson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to migrate the workload of a computing device in Gatson to another computing device because it would quickly reduce the power consumption of that computing device in order to bring its power usage down to a level specified by the policy.
Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 3 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 4 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 3 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gatson et al. (hereinafter as Gatson) PGPUB 2016/0370843, and further in view of Sato USPAT 10,895,904.
As per claim 5, Gatson teach the method to provide multi-device power consumption optimization of claim 1.
Gatson does not teach further comprising: receiving, by the computing device, user input data indicative of a cancellation of a first power saving operation of the one or more power saving operations; and instructing, by the computing device, the one or more computing devices to perform a second power saving operation of the one or more power saving operations based at least in part on the cancellation.
Sato teaches performing throttling to reduce power consumption in a computing device. Sato is thus similar to Gatson. Sato further teaches receiving, by the computing device, user input data indicative of a cancellation of a first power saving operation of the one or more power saving operations [claim 1: (change a power throttling mode based on received instruction to a second throttling mode based on user indicated preference; changing a throttling mode is a cancellation of the original/first power saving operation)]; and instructing, by the computing device, the one or more computing devices to perform a second power saving operation of the one or more power saving operations based at least in part on the cancellation [claim 1: (changing to a second throttling mode; changing is cancellation of the original power throttling mode and performing the second throttling mode)].
The combination of Gatson with Sato allows a user to interrupt a power saving operation and implement a different power saving operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sato’s teachings of allowing a user to change a power throttling operation to a second power throttling operation in Gatson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to change the power throttling operation based on user input in Gatson because it provides greater flexibility and control over what power saving measure is used, thus improving user convenience.
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gatson et al. (hereinafter as Gatson) PGPUB 2016/0370843, and further in view of Rong et al. (hereinafter as Rong) PGPUB 2020/0042068.
As per claim 9, Gatson teach the method to provide multi-device power consumption optimization of claim 1.
Gatson does not explicitly teach further comprising: determining, by the computing device, that at least one of an additional computing device has been added to the plurality of computing devices or an existing computing device of the plurality of computing devices has been removed from the plurality of computing devices; and modifying, by the computing device, at least one of the collective power saving strategy or the one or more power saving operations based on at least one of addition of the additional computing device to the plurality of computing devices or removal of the existing computing device from the plurality of computing devices. Although Gatson describes the detection of new data [0071], Gatson does not indicate whether this new data is caused by the addition of a computing device.
Rong teaches monitoring and managing power consumption of multiple computing node clusters and providing power budget rules for the plurality of computing node clusters. Rong is thus similar to Gatson. Rong further teaches determining, by the computing device, that at least one of an additional computing device has been added to the plurality of computing devices or an existing computing device of the plurality of computing devices has been removed from the plurality of computing devices [0014: (when computing node clusters are added or removed)]; and modifying, by the computing device, at least one of the collective power saving strategy or the one or more power saving operations based on at least one of addition of the additional computing device to the plurality of computing devices or removal of the existing computing device from the plurality of computing devices [0014 and 0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Rong’s teachings of tracking when computing devices are added or removed and adjusting power budget rules accordingly in Gatson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine when devices are added or removed and adjust the collective power saving strategy/policy in Gatson because it keeps the policy updated and ensures that newly added devices are power managed properly, and prevents application of a power saving operation on a device that is no longer there.
Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 9 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gatson et al. (hereinafter as Gatson) PGPUB 2016/0370843, and further in view of Bostick et al. (hereinafter as Bostick) PGPUB 2017/0045932.
As per claim 10, Gatson teach the method to provide multi-device power consumption optimization of claim 1.
Gatson does not teach further comprising: obtaining, by the computing device, second power consumption characteristics data corresponding respectively to each of a second plurality of computing devices associated with a second user; generating, by the computing device, a second collective power saving strategy corresponding to the plurality of computing devices and the second plurality of computing devices based on the power consumption characteristics data and the second power consumption characteristics data, the second collective power saving strategy comprising one or more second power saving operations that, when implemented, conserve a second total amount of power used by the plurality of computing devices and the second plurality of computing devices; receiving, by the computing device, second user approval data indicative of a second approval by the user and the second user to implement the second collective power saving strategy; and instructing, by the computing device, at least one of the one or more computing devices or one or more second computing devices of the second plurality of computing devices to perform at least one of the one or more second power saving operations based on the second user approval data. Gatson does not describe a second set of a plurality of devices by a second user.
Bostick teaches power sharing among multiple devices. Bostick is thus similar to Gaston. Bostick further teaches obtaining, by the computing device, second power consumption characteristics data corresponding respectively to each of a second plurality of computing devices associated with a second user [0006, 0020, and 0098: (obtain information identifying an amount of power the user has consumed across a plurality of user devices for a second user B)]; generating, by the computing device, a second collective power saving strategy corresponding to the plurality of computing devices and the second plurality of computing devices based on the power consumption characteristics data and the second power consumption characteristics data, the second collective power saving strategy comprising one or more second power saving operations that, when implemented, conserve a second total amount of power used by the plurality of computing devices and the second plurality of computing devices [0004, 0060, 0068, 0084: (suggest a plan such as alternate usage plan)]; receiving, by the computing device, second user approval data indicative of a second approval by the user and the second user to implement the second collective power saving strategy [0004, 0060, 0062, 0068, 0077: (a suggested plan needs approval before it is implemented)]; and instructing, by the computing device, at least one of the one or more computing devices or one or more second computing devices of the second plurality of computing devices to perform at least one of the one or more second power saving operations based on the second user approval data [0066 and 0088: (usage rules of the approved alternate usage plan are provided to user’s devices)].
The combination of Gatson with Bostick allows a second group of devices in Gatson to be separately managed according to a second group policy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Bostick’s teachings of having a second group of devices and a second group policy in Gatson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have a second group of devices managed according to a second group policy in Gatson because it allows for additional or separate grouping of devices for a different user or entity so that its power is managed separately than the first group, thus allowing for greater customization and control.
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 10 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is reminded that in amending in response to a rejection of claims, the patentable novelty must be clearly shown in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited and the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid such references and objections. See 37 CFR §1.111(c).
Mukherjee et al. (PGPUB 2023/0189469) teaches a group power limit to define tower power available in a policy.
Rodriguez Bravo (PGPUB 2020/0042070) teaches monitoring battery of multiple user devices and adjusting operations.
Davis et al. (PGPUB 2013/0124885) teaches power policy manager that provides a power model and power cap to each of the computing devices in a cluster.
Blackburn (PGPUB 2012/0166825) teaches a group power controller that monitors computers and allocates power consumption to computers in the group.
Arndt et al. (PPGUB 2012/0117390) teaches a policy to allocate energy into groups of computing devices and adjusting the share of energy for each group.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANNY CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 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, Andrew J. Jung can be reached at 5712703779. 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.
/DANNY CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175