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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the application filed on 06 June 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. The rejections are as stated below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) submitted in this application on 02 July 2024, 27 September 2024, 07 November 2024, 21 may 2025, 25 June 2025, 23 July 2025 and 08 June 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs are being considered by the examiner. The initialed copies of the1449s are enclosed herewith.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of Patent No. US 12155210 B2. The claims of the instant application and the patents mentioned above are drawn to methods and corresponding systems of techniques for orchestrated load shedding. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because they recite means or steps that are substantially the same and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, the omission of an element with a corresponding loss of function is an obvious expedient. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 and Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375.
For these reasons, the claims of the instant application are not identical to claims 1-19 of Patent No. US 12155210 B2, but they are not patently distinct.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
The instant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 1 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for improving power management techniques with respect to load shedding by reducing power consumption.
The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent method claim 1, recites the limitations of Identifying a plurality of response levels that individually specify criteria for selecting, from a plurality of resources, a subset of resources to which a respective set of reduction actions corresponding to a respective response level are applicable; wherein the plurality of response levels comprise a first response level that specifies first criteria for selecting, from the plurality of resources, a first set of resources to which a first set of reduction actions are applicable; for a first response level of the plurality of response levels: selecting the subset of resources from the plurality of resources based at least in part on a current state of the plurality of resources and the criteria specified for the first response level of the plurality of response levels; and determining a first power reduction that is expected to result from executing, on the subset of resources, the first set of reduction actions corresponding to the first response level; selecting the first response level from the plurality of response levels based at least on the first power reduction that is expected to result from executing the first set of reduction actions corresponding to the first response level; and executing the first set of reduction actions on the subset of resources according to the first response level.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via a fundamental economic concept or managing business activities/interactions (managing power reduction and prioritizing workloads), but for the recitation of generic computer components, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed by a method of organizing human activity. If a claim limitation covers concepts for managing business activities/interactions (identifying response level for selecting resources and corresponding reduction action), but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Activity" grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Accordingly, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of a computer system, to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data (see Applicant’s specification ¶¶ 0269-0274). This generic computer limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(f). The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a server (using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the processor at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to the statutory category of invention of claims 1 and 10. Furthermore, dependent claims 2-9 and 11-20 do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-20, recites the additional limitations of identifying workloads of resources, priorities or categories, comparing the subset of resources, estimating impacts and increasingly severe reduction actions. These limitations further define the abstract idea and are rejected under the same rational of claim 1. The claims merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic processor, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer to merely carry out the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SINHA et al. US 20190332164 A1 disclose “A method for power consumption management in a datacenter. A processor retrieves a power usage model and historical power data for devices in the datacenter and calculates a first supply power from a power supplier that is available for distribution to the datacenter during a load shedding time period. A first power usage for the datacenter is calculated during the load shedding time period. The method further includes determining if the first supply power is greater than the first power usage for the datacenter during the load shedding time period. In response to determining that the first supply power is not greater than the first power usage, a first device in the datacenter is identified to reduce power consumption. The first device in the datacenter is triggered to reduce power consumption during the load shedding time period”.
Hamilton et al. US 20090235097 A1 disclose “method for managing power consumption of a data center includes monitoring power consumption of a data center, assessing power consumption with respect to a billing equation for power, based on the assessment, deciding whether to implement a power policy where the power policy reduces instantaneous power consumption by the data center and increases a load factor wherein the load factor is an average power consumed by the data center divided by a peak power consumed by the data center over a period of time. Various other methods, devices, systems, etc., are also disclosed”.
Wang et al. US 20120226922 A1 disclose " methods and articles of manufacture to cap data center power consumption are disclosed. A disclosed example system includes a group power capper to allocate a fraction of power for a data center to a portion of the data center, a domain power capper to allocate hosted applications to a server of the portion of the data center to comply with the allocated portion of the power, and a local power capper to control a first state of the server and a second state of a cooling actuator associated with the portion of the data center to comply with the allocated portion of the power".
Throop US 9625967 B1 discloses a method for “managing power usage in data center components. A control center is provided to manage power state information for multiple data center components. The control center may register data center components capable of operating in a reduced power state. The control center acquires requests to change the power state information and generated data center component instructions indicative of the power state information. The instructions are communicated to the registered data center components. The instructions are received at the registered data center components and power usage is adjusted based on the received instructions”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hani Kazimi whose telephone number is (571) 272-6745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on (571) 270-1836. 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.
Respectfully Submitted
/HANI M KAZIMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights