DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 30 April 2026. They have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. The amendment to claim 15 has overcome the rejection based on prior art because it incorporates subject matter indicated as allowable. The rejection against claim 15 is therefore withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 8 are directed to a computer-implemented method and have been amended to include the language: “wherein the management controller is on a separate power domain from hardware resources of the data processing system so that the management controller is operable while hardware resources are inoperable”. This language raises issues related to indefiniteness and intended use and has necessitated new grounds of rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the following language:
“…wherein the management controller is on a separate power domain from hardware resources of the data processing system so that the management controller is operable while the hardware resources are inoperable.”
This language is indefinite because it is unclear whether it recites a required limitation of the invention or merely an intended use. Claim 1 is directed to a method, but the features recited in the amended language are directed to features of the management controller that do not clearly limit the execution of the method. The relationship of the management controller to the power domains does not appear to meaningfully affect the steps of the method. It is therefore unclear how they further limit the method, if at all. If the amendment is not a required limitation, it may be interpreted as a statement of intended use (and possibly non-limiting). The Examiner recommends amending the claims in such a way that they clearly incorporate the amendment language as further limitations of the steps executed by the method. Claim 8 includes the same language and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
For the purposes of comparison with the prior art, the amendment language will be interpreted as non-limiting [MPEP 2103(C): “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation.”].
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 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0393858, in view of Sauvage et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,817,000.
Regarding claim 1, Dai discloses a method comprising:
obtaining, by a management controller [Fig. 1, para. 0028: electronic device controller 108] of the data processing system, power data of the data processing system, the power data comprising a total available power of the data processing system [para. 0028: “Specifically, the electronic device controller 108 determines 1) how much power is available from the power supply 106…”];
using, by the management controller, the total available power to control installation of one or more peripheral devices into the data processing system [Fig. 2, steps 201: connect peripheral device to port, i.e., installing the device; para. 0052-0053: “If the power supply 106 is able to provide the requested level of power, 205 determination YES, the method 200 ends and the electronic device controller 108 and the power delivery controller 110 may provide power at the requested draw… By comparison, if the power supply 106 is not able to provide the requested level of power, 205 determination NO, at step 206, the method 200 includes reducing the amount of power supplied.”] 1, wherein the management controller is on a separate power domain from hardware resources of the data processing system so that the management controller is operable while the hardware resources are inoperable [non-limiting].
Dai does not disclose a power usage history snapshot.
Sauvage discloses:
generating a power usage history snapshot using the power data, the power usage history snapshot storing instances of the total available power of the data processing system obtained over a predetermined period of time [col. 13, lines 7-9: “In an alternate embodiment, a running average of remaining battery capacity values received during the last day, week, or month window may be stored.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Dai and Sauvage by storing a running average of remaining battery capacity values (i.e., generating a power usage history snapshot) as taught by Sauvage. Dai and Sauvage both disclose systems that track a remaining power capacity of a computer system as part of managing power to connected devices [Sauvage, Fig. 3]. Dai teaches that the host system may comprise a portable computer that may supply power to devices while operating from its internal battery [para. 0024: “When running off an internal battery, the amount of power available for peripheral devices may be finite. As such, the power supply 106 may have a reduced capacity to provide power to the processor 102 and peripheral devices.”]. Sauvage teaches that systems that rely upon a battery to supply power to devices may take battery voltage measurements to determine capacity, but that such measurements may be noisy, and therefore suggests averaging several measurements together [col. 11, lines 21-26]. Sauvage additionally teaches that power sustainability data (which includes average battery capacity values) may be stored over a period of time to determine historical trends [col. 12, line 60 to col. 13, line 9]. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Sauvage to the invention of Dai based on Sauvage’s suggestion that averaging mitigates against noisy battery capacity measurements, and that storing average values over time enables historical trends to be determined.
Regarding claim 2, Sauvage teaches an average of the instances of the total available power of the data processing system stored in the power usage history snapshot [col. 11, lines 21-26; col. 13, lines 7-9] is used as a power budget of the data processing system to control the installation of the one or more peripheral devices.
Regarding claim 4, Dai teaches:
obtaining a power rating of the peripheral device without user intervention, the peripheral device already being installed in the data processing system before the management controller is aware of the power rating [Fig. 2, step 204: peripheral device requesting additional power];
comparing the power rating of the peripheral device to the power budget [step 205: can electronic device supply the requested draw]; and
causing the data processing system to perform one or more power usage remediation actions based on a result of the comparing [step 206: reduce the amount of power supplied].
Claims 8, 9, and 11 are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 2, and 4.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai in view of Sauvage as applied to claims 4 and 11 above, and further in view of Landers et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0162952.
Regarding claim 5, Dai and Sauvage disclose the power usage remediation actions of claim 4, but do not disclose any of providing a warning to a user, disabling interfaces, or preventing completion of startup.
Landers discloses a power usage remediation action of providing a warning to a user of the data processing system that the power rating of the peripheral device is incompatible with the power budget of the data processing system [para. 0075: “The software process may calculate the total power demand each time a new peripheral device is connected to, or disconnected from, the point of sale terminal. If the software process calculates that total power demand exceeds the available power, the software process… notifies the user that total power demand exceeds the available power.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Dai, Sauvage, and Landers by modifying Dai to provide a warning to a user as taught by Landers. Dai and Landers both disclose hosts that supply power to peripheral devices upon connection to the host. Landers teaches that when power requested by the peripheral device exceeds the available power, a notification is provided that enables a user to remove other devices to reduce total power usage (and presumable increase the available power). It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Landers to Dai’s invention based on Landers’ teaching that a notification allows a user to take actions to increase the available power.
Claim 12 is rejected on the same basis as claim 5.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai in view of Sauvage as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Srivastav et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0205248.
Regarding claim 7, Dai and Sauvage disclose the method of claim 1, and also teach that the management controller operates independently of a CPU [Fig. 1: electronic device controller 108 is separate from processor 102], but do not teach that the management controller is a microcontroller.
Srivastav discloses a microcontroller [para. 0039: “Power management firmware 216 includes (or is associated with) platform boost and throttle (PBT) controller 220, which is a software entity (e.g., a routine within or associated with power management firmware 216, etc.) executed by a processor (e.g., an embedded processor or microcontroller including controller circuitry) in the electronic device.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Dai and Srivastav by substituting the electronic device controller of Dai with the microcontroller of Srivastav. Dai discloses an electronic device controller that monitors total available power of a computer system and controls allocation of power to connected peripheral devices [Fig. 2]. Srivastav discloses a microcontroller that monitors total available power of a computer system and controls allocation of power to connected peripheral devices [para. 0039: “For example, if a universal serial bus (USB) device is connected and/or commences drawing additional electrical power (e.g., to charge a battery in the USB device, etc.), PBT controller 220 can reallocate electrical power from a CPU core or GPU core to make the power available to the USB device. That is, PBT controller 220 can reduce the amount of electrical power provisioned to the CPU core or GPU core so that the USB device can be provided more electrical power without violating the platform electrical power limit.”]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the electronic device controller of Dai could have been substituted with the microcontroller of Srivastav with the predictable result that the microcontroller of Srivastav could have performed the functions of Dai’s electronic device controller. The predictability is based on the similarity in function of Dai and Srivastav’s controllers.
Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis as claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
Claims 3, 6, 10, and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI H BAE whose telephone number is (571)272-7181. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday to Friday and every other Monday, 9 am to 6 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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/JI H BAE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Phone: 571-272-7181
Fax: 571-273-7181
ji.bae@uspto.gov
1 Since these steps are carried out in response to a new device being connected, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of “control installation” includes configuration steps executed in response to connecting a new device to the host.
Prosecution Insights