DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing 03/05/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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.
(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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being unpatentable over Potlapally (U.S. Patent No. 9557792).
Regarding Claim 1, Potlapally teaches,
A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a set of metrics for a plurality of components (workload and power-related metrics ("set of metrics") are collected ("received") from numerous power management endpoints ("plurality of components") [Col. 3, lines 33-37]; where power management endpoints include endpoints implemented in software, hardware or a combination of software and hardware [Col. 2, line 66- Col. 3, line 4]);
evaluating the set of metrics for the plurality of components (the received set of metrics are evaluated [Col. 3, lines 47-59; and Col. 7, lines 9-16]), wherein the evaluating includes:
determining a likelihood of component failure for each component from the plurality of components (power optimization is performed to avoid failure conditions and where a "low-power state" is an example operation of proactive preventative actions [Col. 7, lines 11-25]; the datacenter power manager receives metrics from each component's endpoint manager and an indication of component power state [Col. 10, lines 43-53]; the datacenter power manager makes a determination regarding all components' capabilities to handle workloads, where by example, the datacenter power manager may determine that a component should be moved to a low-power state (a relatively higher “likelihood of failure”) and the other components are capable of handling more workload (a relatively lower “likelihood of failure”) [Col. 10, line 64-Col. 11, line 4]; also see Fig. 4a and 4b showing that "power state" is determined for each rack, exemplary (as this ‘power state changes via workload redistribution’ is not limited to server racks and may also be performed at various granularity including cores [Col. 11, lines 38-43]));
determining, based on the evaluating, to perform a component rotation for a first component from the plurality of components with a second component from the plurality of components, wherein the first component has a greater likelihood of the component failure compared to the second component (the system determines to perform workload transferring ("component rotation") [Col. 3, lines 53-56; and Col. Col. 7, lines 55-57]; where component metrics may be analyzed to determine ("based on evaluating...") that preventative actions must be taken, including migrating workloads from a problematic component (the" first component") to another component (the "second component") [Col. 4, lines 21-39]; the examiner notes that by the cited example, the first component from which workloads are transferred away must have a greater likelihood of failure than the second component);
and performing the component rotation based on a component rotation plan, (the system performs the component rotation [Col. 7, lines 16-23]; where source servers ("a second component") are identified according to a plan [Col. 15, lines 26-30; also see Col. 15, lines 35-55])
wherein the performing the component rotation includes transitioning, via a signal system, a plurality of processing operations from the first component that is a first central processing unit to the second component that is a second central processing unit (power-optimization (also discussed [Col. 7, lines 16-23]) may include migrating workloads from one processing core to another [Col. 4, lines 4-7]; where power-optimization operations (including workload transferring) may be applied to CPUs by example [Col. 13, line 52-Col. 14, line 3]; power optimization is performed by the data center manager which communicates via control signals ("signal system") [Fig. 1; Col. 7, lines 16-29]).
Regarding Claim 2, Potlapally teaches,
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the determining to perform the component rotation for the first component from the plurality of components, further comprises: determining a fixed interval is reached, wherein the fixed interval represents a set amount of time to trigger the component rotation (determination to perform optimization operations (failover; workload transfer) are performed in cycles repeating every X seconds or minutes ("fixed interval") [Col. 8, lines 41-46]);
and establishing the component rotation plan based on results from the evaluating of the set of metrics for the plurality of components (the set of metrics are used to establish source servers ("second component") to form a workload transfer ("component rotation") plan [Col. 15, lines 26-30]).
Regarding Claim 3, Potlapally teaches,
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: establishing the component rotation plan based on results from the evaluating of the set of metrics for the plurality of components (the set of metrics are used to establish source servers ("second component") to form a workload transfer ("component rotation") plan [Col. 15, lines 26-30]).
Regarding Claim 4, Potlapally teaches,
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the set of metrics is selected from a group consisting of operational metrics or environmental metrics (metrics include: power sensors, kernel modules, and performance analysis tools ("operational metrics"); and air-flow sensors, thermal sensors, and thermostats ("environmental metrics") [Col. 6, 32-38]).
Regarding Claim 5, Potlapally teaches,
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving component specification for each component from the plurality of components (specifications about the plurality of components are stored [Col. 11, lines 59-65]);
and identifying one or more data sources for providing the set of metrics for the plurality of components (the identified server characteristics are used to ensure workloads are directed to servers as best suited [Col. 12, lines 63-67]; where the set of metrics are used to establish source servers ("second component") to form a workload transfer ("component rotation") plan [Col. 15, lines 26-30]).
Regarding Claim 6, Potlapally teaches,
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein performing the component rotation based on the component rotation plan increases an effective lifespan of a system with the plurality of components (performing proactive prevention, including workload rerouting, extends the lifetime of the devices [Col. 4, lines 33-39]).
Claims 8-13 recite a shift in statutory category and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) under the same grounds of rejection under Potlapally as Claims 1-6, above, respectively.
Claims 15-20 recite a shift in statutory category and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) under the same grounds of rejection under Potlapally as Claims 1-6, above, respectively.
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.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potlapally in view of Gawali et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8135981).
Regarding Claim 7, Potlapally does not appear to disclose and Gawali teaches,
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the performing the component rotation based on the component rotation plan further comprises: triggering a failover of a workload of the first component onto the second component based on a detection of a data anomaly in the set of metrics for the plurality of components (the system may detect anomalies from system parameters associated with each, individually, the primary cluster ("first component") and the secondary cluster ("second component") [Col. 8, lines 36-40]; where the system detects both individual anomalies as intra-cluster anomalies and inter-cluster anomalies across resources (across a first and second component) [Col. 4, lines 37-45]);
monitoring the set of metrics for the second component based on the failover of the workload (the system performs continuous monitoring to obtain system parameters [Col. 4, lines 39-44]);
and comparing the set of metrics of the first component and the second component to determine whether the data anomaly was caused by an environmental characteristic or a physical characteristic of the first component (inter-cluster anomalies [across the first and second component; Col. 4, lines 43-44] are detected by performing a comparison between the primary and secondary clusters ("first and second components") [Col. 8, lines 37-40]; the examiner notes that by determining if a failure exists at a cluster ("component"), and additionally across components, the system is configured to determine a local cause ("a physical characteristic of the first component") and therefore a non-localized cause ("environmental characteristic")).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the component failover system to improve device lifespan of Potlapally with the failover anomaly distinction of Gawali. The resulting combination improves failover upon occurrence of a failure by taking corrective actions [Gawali; Col. 4, lines 45-48].
Claim 14 recites a shift in statutory category and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 under the same grounds of rejection under Potlapally in view of Gawali as Claim 7, above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments field 03/05/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. For clarity of the record, the Examiner points to 2106.04(d) reciting, “Step 2A [Prong Two] specifically excludes consideration of whether the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” The practical application of executing workloads on an alternate component that has been determined to have a lower likelihood of failure executing the workload is a direct consequence of the recited mental process-type abstract ideas (determining components’ likelihood of failure, then determining to perform component rotation). Therefore, the performance of component rotation is beyond generally linked to the use of the judicial exception and justifies a meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. The improvement recited in par. 0009, 0032, and 0042 of the specification is reflected in the claims. For at least the above reasons, the Examiner finds the claims are patent eligible under Step 2A Prong Two. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 has been considered and is not persuasive. The Applicant recites on pg. 12 of the Remarks, “amended claim 1 now requires, [1] ‘determining a likelihood of a component failure for each component from the plurality of components’, which when combined with [2] ‘determining, based on the evaluating, to perform a component rotation for a first component from the plurality of components with a second component from the plurality of components, wherein the first component has a greater likelihood of component failure compared to the second component’ is not disclosed by Potlapally,” the Examiner has labeled the above limitations (1) and (2) for clarity and brevity. On pg. 13, the Applicant reproduces the portions of Potlapally relied upon to disclose (2) and recites that “Potlapally clearly discloses proactive ‘power optimization operations’ which are directed to ‘reduc[ing] the likelihood of, maximum temperature limits being met at various points in the data center’. Therefore, […] Potlapally fails to disclose [(1)].” The Examiner disagrees that the exact portions of the art applied to (2) must teach (1); the cited portions of Potlapally relied upon to disclose (2) are not relied upon in the rejection above to teach (1). Please see [Col. 7, lines 11-25], [Col. 10, lines 43-53], [Col 10, line 64- Col. 11, line 4], Fig. 4a, Fig. 4b, and [Col. 11, lines 38-43] as teaching (1). The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY E WHITESELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4767. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm MST.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 5712723655. 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.
/A.E.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2113 /BRYCE P BONZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights