Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/787,298

OPTIMIZING ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF SERVER LOAD BASED ON POWER MEASUREMENTS AND CHARACTERISTICS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jul 29, 2024
Examiner
ALSIP, MICHAEL
Art Unit
2139
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP
OA Round
2 (Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 1m
Est. Remaining
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allowance Rate
489 granted / 653 resolved
+19.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
677
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
58.3%
+18.3% vs TC avg
§102
30.4%
-9.6% vs TC avg
§112
8.8%
-31.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 653 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . 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 1-20 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 recites the limitations: “computing one or more ratios between two of the first, second, third, and fourth current power measurements; identifying a benchmark workload whose power-consumption profile most closely corresponds to the current workload by comparing the one or more computed ratios to one or more corresponding predetermined values”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation is that one ratio between the four current power measurements is computed. Then a comparison of the one computed ratio is made to one corresponding predetermined value. This process is claimed to identify a benchmark workload whose power-consumption profile most closely corresponds to the current workload. It is unclear how one comparison of one ratio to one predetermined value accomplishes the identifying, as claimed. It doesn’t seem like this limitation leads to identifying the most closely corresponding benchmark workload. Further, it is unclear what the phrase “most closely corresponds to” means. It is unclear how the result of the comparison of one ratio to one corresponding predetermined value corresponds to a power-consumption profile? The term “most closely” is a relative phrase and without knowing more about the type of evaluation being performed, it is unclear what “most closely” is referring too. In other words, most closely to what and what correspondence is being optimized for. Independent claims 12 and 20 have the same issues as claim 1 above. The dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependences on a rejected base claim. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL ALSIP whose telephone number is (571)270-1182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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, Reginald G. Bragdon can be reached at (571)272-4204. 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. /MICHAEL ALSIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2136
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 29, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Mar 04, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 04, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 06, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 25, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12632176
CHOOSING AMONG STORAGE OPTIMIZATIONS WHEN STORING CANDIDATE DATA
2y 2m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12632193
SELECTING DATA RELOCATION OPERATIONS BASED ON AN ENERGY THRESHOLD AND A PERFORMANCE THRESHOLD
2y 0m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12622627
ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM SIGNAL CLASSIFICATION METHOD AND APPARATUS, DEVICE, STORAGE MEDIUM AND PROGRAM PRODUCT
3y 6m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12619546
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DATA STORAGE, TRANSFER, SYNCHRONIZATION, AND SECURITY USING AUTOMATED MODEL MONITORING AND TRAINING WITH A LOAD-ADAPTIVE CACHE
1y 1m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12596685
SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR BANDWIDTH-EFFICIENT DATA ENCODING
1y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+5.4%)
2y 11m (~1y 1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 653 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month