Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 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
2y 11m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
481 granted / 645 resolved
+19.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
675
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.8%
-37.2% vs TC avg
§103
39.6%
-0.4% vs TC avg
§102
37.3%
-2.7% vs TC avg
§112
15.3%
-24.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 645 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 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 04, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 04, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 06, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 22, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596685
SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR BANDWIDTH-EFFICIENT DATA ENCODING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591518
VALIDITY MAPPING TECHNIQUES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591545
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SECURING HIGH-SPEED INTRACHIP COMMUNICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585950
METHOD AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR PERFORMING DEEP NEURAL NETWORK OPERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578856
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DATA COMPACTION AND SECURITY USING MULTIPLE ENCODING ALGORITHMS WITH PRE-CODING AND COMPLEXITY ESTIMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+5.1%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 645 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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