DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 06/28/24 for application number 18/759,485. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, IDS, Claims, and Certified Copy of Foreign Priority Application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6-11, 14, 17, and 18 are 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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kocoloski et al., US 2017/0373955 A1, in view of Fick et al., US 2013/0231794 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Kocoloski discloses a computing device [node 300, Fig. 3] comprising:
one or more memories [314A, 314B]; and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories [312A, 312B], the one or more processors being configured to:
determine, based on executing at least one machine learning model, a measure of node criticality for a node of a cluster [Prediction unit 435 utilizes a model for determining if a node is on a critical path based on the values of performance counters 430. In one embodiment, each node 405A-N runs the same model for generating a prediction, with the model being distributed to each of the nodes 405A-N prior to execution starting on the current workload. In another embodiment, each node 405A-N utilizes a model which is unique and different from the models utilized by the other nodes 405A-N; Depending on the embodiment, the model is created using any of various techniques, including linear regression, machine learning, artificial intelligence, and/or other techniques, i.e. determining whether the node is on a critical path (i.e. criticality of the node), par 46, 6].
However, Kocoloski does not explicitly teach determine, based on the measure of node criticality, a power savings measure of one or more power savings measures to be applied to the node; and apply the power savings measure to the node.
In the analogous art of power management, Fick similarly discloses determining, based on executing at least one model, a measure of node criticality for a node of a cluster [based on the intelligent power reduction, load/assign each node priority information (criticality), par 35]. Fick further teaches determining, based on the measure of node criticality, a power savings measure of one or more power savings measures to be applied to the node; and applying the power savings measure to the node [based on the priority, will reduce power or turn off the node, par 35].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kocoloski and Fick before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the power savings measures as taught by Fick into the device as disclosed by Kocoloski, in order to advantageously manage the multiple devices on a system or cable when there is insufficient power to operate all of the devices on the system or cable [Fick, par 6].
Regarding Claim 3, Kocoloski and Fick disclose the computing device of Claim 1. Fick further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine a corresponding measure of node criticality for each node of the cluster [based on the intelligent power reduction, load/assign each node priority information (criticality), par 35].
Regarding Claim 4, Kocoloski and Fick disclose the computing device of Claim 1. Fick further teaches, in a different embodiment, wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the measure of node criticality on a periodic basis [a granularized power management system provides that continuous and/or periodic system health may be ascertained because valves may be exercised on an individual basis].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kocoloski and Fick before him to incorporate a separate embodiment of Fick regarding granularized power management into the device as disclosed by Kocoloski and Fick, to provide transparency to the functional operation of the system [Fick, par 13].
Regarding Claim 5, Kocoloski and Fick disclose the computing device of Claim 1. Fick further teaches wherein to determine the measure of node criticality, the one or more processors are configured to determine a measure of a total number of predicted workloads to be scheduled on the node during a prediction window [the system further comprises a respective operational priority value corresponding to each of the respective devices. The control node compares the total of the power requirements for all of the devices to the total available power for the system, and when the total of the power requirements exceeds the total power available, the control node determines which of the devices has the lowest operational priority (the prediction window being the evaluation window), par 15].
Regarding Claim 12, Kocoloski and Fick disclose the computing device of Claim 1. Fick further teaches wherein the one or more power savings measures comprise at least one of: shutting down at least one network interface card of the node; lowering a frequency of at least one processor core of the node; or moving the at least one processor core of the node into a different power optimized state [based on the priority, will reduce power or turn off the node, par 35].
Regarding Claim 13, Kocoloski discloses a method [using the node 300, Fig. 3]. The remainder of Claim 13 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 1, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 15, 16, and 19, Kocoloski and Fick disclose the method of Claim 13. Claims 15, 16, and 19 recite limitations similar to those of Claims 3, 5, and 12, respectively, and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 20, Kocoloski discloses non-transitory computer-readable media [350, 314A, 314B, Fig. 3], storing instructions which, are executed by one or more processors [312A, 312B]. The remainder of Claim 20 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 1, and is rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Applicant is reminded that in amending a 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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 PT.
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 (571) 270-3779. 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.
/Paul Yen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights