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 .
Claims 1-36 are pending.
Claims 1, 15, 19, and 22 have been amended.
This action is Non-Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-16, 18-20, 22-23, and 25-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inbaraj et al. (hereinafter as Inbaraj) PGPUB 2013/0073882, and further in view of Brunner et al. (hereinafter as Brunner) PGPUB 2012/0271472.
As per claim 1, Inbaraj teaches a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium storing computer executable instructions thereon that, when executed by a computer, perform the following operations for controlling energy consumption of a datacenter [0048 and 0061]:
generating a display screen for programming one or more devices in the datacenter [0055, FIG. 5 – FIG. 7], the display screen configured to provide instructions on defining a rule by displaying:
an input signal type menu comprising one or more input signal types [FIG. 5: (server configuration menu for server 1 (input signal type) or FIG. 7: (schedule menu for inputting date and times (input signal type))],
a trigger criterion menu comprising one or more trigger criteria [FIG. 7: (servers with priority menu for specifying servers with a priority less than 2 (trigger criteria))]; and
an action menu comprising one or more actions for execution on the one or more devices [FIG. 7: (set duty cycle to at least a certain percentage (actions)];
creating one or more defined rules by receiving an input signal type selected from the input signal type menu, a trigger criterion selected from the trigger criterion menu, and an action selected from the action menu [0089-0090: (user configures a customized power management policy for particular servers in a data center by inputting the schedule, the criteria for which servers it applies to, and duty cycle to set them at)], wherein each rule has an associated priority [0089: (user inputs a (one, singular) policy to govern the servers; that policy is the only policy and thus has the highest priority by default)]; and
commissioning the defined rule for execution on the one or more devices [0090: (enforcement of the established settings set by the user is set to occur at the scheduled time set by the user)];
wherein the defined rules are configured to automate operating the one or more devices, and wherein operating the one or more devices comprises adjusting energy consumption of the one or more devices [0089-0090: (the established policy automatically adjusts the power consumption of servers having a low priority (3 or lower) to operate at a duty cycle of at least 60%)].
Inbaraj does not explicitly teach creating two or more defined rules, wherein each rule has an associated priority; commissioning the defined rule for execution on the one or more devices according to the priority associated with each rule. Inbaraj creates one rule rather than multiple rules.
Brunner teaches creation of rules for energy management in facilities like a data center. Brunner is therefore similar to Inbaraj because they both attempt automatic power management of computing devices in a data center. Brunner further teaches creating two or more defined rules [FIG. 12 and 0143-0149: (create virtually unlimited number of rules/policies to control assets managed by Energy Management System)], wherein each rule has an associated priority [0112: (multiple policies can be ordered/created according to a predetermined sequence so that one policy has higher priority over other policies, and that priority of policies are dictated by a user)]; commissioning the defined rule for execution on the one or more devices according to the priority associated with each rule [0112-0113: (higher priority policies/rules will be executed first for energy management before a policy that has lower priority)]. Brunner thus shows creation of multiple rules/policies with priorities and executing the rules/priories according to the priority.
The combination of Inbaraj with Brunner allows Inbaraj to create multiple power management policies that may have different priorities, and execute them according to their priority.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Brunner’s teachings of implementing multiple rules/policies having different priorities for energy management in Inbaraj. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide multiple rules in Inbaraj because it allows for greater control and provides different ways of saving power. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide priorities to the rules because it would ensure the most effective or important policy to be implemented first before other lower importance or less effective power management rules.
As per claim 2, Inbaraj and Brunner teaches the computer program product of claim 1, wherein commissioning the defined rules for execution comprises: receiving input signal values of the selected input signal type [Inbaraj 0052, 0073, and 0087: (user may assign priorities to servers) and 0089-0090: (user interface for receiving user input for configuring customized power management policies of particular server computers based on server priorities)]; monitoring the input signal values to determine that the input signal values meet the trigger criterion [Inbaraj 0089-0090: (priorities of servers are monitored and determines whether they meet the threshold priority condition)]; and once the trigger criterion is met, dispatching action signals for executing the action on the one or more devices [Inbaraj 0089-0090: (duty cycle is adjusted according to the user input to all servers that meet the threshold criteria)].
As per claim 4, Inbaraj and Brunner teach the computer program product of claim 1, wherein operating the one or more devices further comprises one or more of: sourcing energy to the one or more devices [Inbaraj 0089-0090: (server devices are configured to be provided with power having a particular duty cycle amount)], trading energy allocated to the one or more devices, monitoring and/or maintaining the health or operating conditions of the one or more devices, monetizing energy allocated to the one or more devices, and complying with or executing a contractual agreement or an option agreement in relation to operating the one or more devices.
As per claim 5, Inbaraj and Brunner teach the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the one or more devices consume energy to generate a device product measured by a product signal [Inbaraj 0027: (determines whether power usage exceeds rack power usage limit according to power usage monitor (generate product measured by a product signal))], and wherein the input signal type menu comprises any one or more of the product signals [Inbaraj 0027: (alerting the user to adjust at least one of the priority assignment or power zone setting for a server (input menu comprise product signal))], a product price signal, a product cost signal, a product profit margin signal, a breakeven signal, and a breakeven efficiency signal.
As per claim 6, Inbaraj and Brunner teaches the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the trigger criterion menu comprises any one or more of a time frame within which the input signal values are monitored, a signal condition, a signal threshold [Inbaraj FIG. 7: (less than a priority of 2 (signal threshold))], a signal range, and an energy market for which values for the selected signal type are monitored.
As per claim 7, Inbaraj and Brunner teaches the computer program product of claim 6, wherein the signal condition comprises a conditional statement comprising an operand that compares values of the selected signal type with the signal threshold or the signal range [Inbaraj FIG. 7: (conditional statement with operator of less than, and operand value of 2)].
As per claim 8, Inbaraj and Brunner teach the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the action menu further comprises an action point menu, comprising one or more action points [Inbaraj FIG. 7: (action point of setting duty cycle)], and wherein creating the defined rules further comprises receiving an action point selected from the action point menu [Inbaraj FIG. 7: (selecting duty cycle action)].
As per claim 9, Inbaraj and Brunner teach the computer program product of claim 8, wherein the action menu further comprises an action dispatching menu comprising one or more action dispatching options configured to prescribe a method of dispatching the action signals to the selected action point [Inbaraj FIG. 7: (action dispatching options of selecting “at least” 730 or “less than” for performing the action of setting duty cycle)], and wherein creating the defined rule further comprises receiving an action dispatching option selected from the action dispatching menu [Inbaraj FIG. 7: (user selects from the option by checking the desired box))].
As per claim 10, Inbaraj and Brunner teaches the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the action menu further comprises an action attribute menu comprising one or more action attribute options configured to prescribe an attribute of the action [Inbaraj FIG. 7: (setting duty cycle to either at less or less than (attribute of the action)], and wherein creating the defined rule further comprises receiving an action attribute option selected from the action attribute menu [Inbaraj FIG. 7 and 0089-0090: (the action of setting duty cycle is dependent on the attribute (at least or less than) and the selected duty cycle percentage)].
As per claim 11, Inbaraj and Brunner teaches the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the display screen further displays a priority menu comprising one or more priority criteria, wherein creating the defined rule further comprises receiving a priority criterion selected from the priority menu as the associated priority, wherein the priority criterion is a priority level selected from a list of priority levels, wherein the priority level is denoted by a priority number, with the priority level indicated by ascending order, wherein larger numbers have higher priority, or by descending order, wherein smaller numbers have higher priority [Inbaraj 0087, FIG. 5, and FIG. 7: (servers are assigned priorities, and selection of multiple servers may be selected based on their priority; small numbers have higher priority; additionally, the user interface allows the user to provide a single policy which is by default, the highest priority since it is the only policy; thus the configuring of the user interface to set a policy can be considered as receiving a criterion from the priority menu as the associated priority of the policy))].
As per claim 12, Inbaraj and Brunner teach the computer program product of claim 11, wherein a first defined rule is executed with a higher priority over a second defined rule if the first rule and the second rule have a similar priority criterion but the first rule is defined to cause a reduction in energy consumption of the one or more devices [Inbaraj 0089-0090 and FIG. 7: (user may set multiple policies and may choose similar priority criterion for the policies at different times; it is apparent that a first policy would have a higher priority over a second policy when the first policy has a reduction of energy consumption by adjusting duty cycle with an earlier execution time)].
As per claim 13, Inbaraj and Brunner teach the computer program product of claim 11, wherein a first defined rule is executed with a higher priority over a second defined rule if the first defined rule and the second defined rule have a similar priority criterion but the first defined rule is defined to cause an increase in energy consumption of the one or more devices [Inbaraj 0089-0090 and FIG. 7: (user may set multiple policies and may choose similar priority criterion for the policies at different times; it is apparent that a first policy would have a higher priority over a second policy when the first policy has an increase of energy consumption by adjusting duty cycle with an earlier execution time)].
As per claim 14, Inbaraj and Brunner teach the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the input signal type menu, the trigger criterion menu, and the action menu are dynamically updated [Inbaraj 0084 and FIG. 5: (server groups, and thus corresponding menu items, may be dynamically moved/updated; additionally, signal type menu could be element 510, trigger criterion menu could be element 530, and action menu could be element 550)].
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale. Inbaraj further teaches a controller operably connected to the one or more energy consuming devices [0040 and FIG. 1 remote management computer 110]; a user interface operably connected to the controller [0040 and 0047: (remote management computer 100 displays user interface with user controls to the user)].
Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 2 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 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 15 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 2 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 22 is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 23 is similar in scope to claim 2 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 25, Inbaraj and Brunner teaches the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the input type signal menu comprises one or more energy consumption signals, and wherein the energy consumption signals include any one or more of uptime measurement signals, energy or power consumption signals, grid or microgrid condition signals, energy price signals, energy mix signals, and coincidental peak signals [Inbaraj FIG. 6: (power zone settings for specifying the min and peak power consumption settings of zones of computing devices)].
As per claim 26, Inbaraj and Brunner teaches the computer program product of claim 5, wherein the product signals comprise any one or more of product price signals, product production cost signals, profit margin signals, breakeven signals, and breakeven efficiency signals [Inbaraj 0086].
As per claim 27, Inbaraj and Brunner teaches the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the input type signal menu comprises one or more device signals [Inbaraj FIG. 5: (list of servers)], wherein the device signals include any one or more of device health signals, device performance or operational condition signals, and device maintenance signals [Inbaraj FIG. 5: (device operating condition signal that include server operating signals)]
Claim 28 is similar in scope to claim 25 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 29 is similar in scope to claim 26 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 30 is similar in scope to claim 27 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 31 is similar in scope to claim 25 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 32 is similar in scope to claim 26 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 33 is similar in scope to claim 27 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 34 is similar in scope to claim 25 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 35 is similar in scope to claim 26 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 36 is similar in scope to claim 27 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 3, 17, 21, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inbaraj et al. (hereinafter as Inbaraj) PGPUB 2013/0073882 in view of Brunner et al. (hereinafter as Brunner) PGPUB 2012/0271472, and further in view of Santana PGPUB 2023/0393596.
As per claim 3, Inbaraj and Brunner teaches the computer program product of claim 2.
Inbaraj and Brunner does not explicitly teach wherein commissioning the defined rule for execution further comprises: monitoring an execution state of the action on the one or more devices; determining that a first set of devices from the one or more devices has not executed the action; and dispatching the action signals to the first set of devices. Inbaraj and Brunner does not explicitly teach tracking whether the action of changing the duty cycle has been executed yet.
Santana teaches performing an action of changing a duty cycle of a power provided to a device. Santana is thus similar to Inbaraj and Brunner because they both aim to change the duty cycle in a power signal to a device. Santana further teaches monitoring an execution state of the action on the one or more devices [0036: (determine the state of the current power cycle)]; determining that a first set of devices from the one or more devices has not executed the action [0036: (wait until the end of the current cycle; thus it determines the action has not been executed and will wait until the end of the cycle)]; and dispatching the action signals to the first set of devices [0036: (controller sends signals that adjust the duty cycle after waiting)]. Santana teaches determining the current state and providing an adjustment of the duty cycle after waiting for the end of the current power cycle.
The combination of Inbaraj and Brunner with Santana leads to the processor determining the current power state and whether the duty cycle has been adjusted yet, and if it hasn’t, then waiting for the current cycle to end before providing signals to adjust the duty cycle of the power signals to the devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Santana’s teachings of checking the current state of a power cycle and whether it needs to wait to the end of the cycle before adjusting the duty cycle in Inbaraj and Brunner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to check in Inbaraj and Brunner upon the detected trigger condition whether the duty cycle has been adjusted yet and if not, wait until the cycle ends before transmitting signals to adjust the duty cycle because it allows a smooth transitioning of power to the computing devices, thereby preventing damage and faults to the computing devices.
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 3 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 21 is similar in scope to claim 3 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 24 is similar in scope to claim 3 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-13, filed 1/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 15, 19, and 22 under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the previously applied prior art in combination with a previously presented prior art.
Conclusion
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