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 Amendment
Amendment filed 4/16/26 is acknowledged. Claims 3-4 and 12-13 are canceled, claims 1-2, 5-11 and 14-20 are pending and rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 4/14/26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In addition, applicant argues that MacNamara changing in power needs does not address power management techniques that is “overprovisioned for initial usage levels” and performed “over the lifetime of the network device”. Examiner disagrees.
Note the claim recite network device configuration is adjusted by adding or removing (i.e. on-lined or off-lined the resources) to meet the demand. It is because there are spare resources (i.e. overprovisioned for initial usage). MacNamara teaches a device [i.e. network device of the claim] among the various devices in a data center connected to each other via a switching fabric 170 [par. 35] having limited onboard memory and relies on the distributed services including memory resources. The distributed architecture not only provides for the overprovisioned of the initial usage of the network device to meet the maximum usage levels over a lifetime of the network device [a large pool of high-speed or specialized memory may be dynamically provisioned between a number of nodes, so that each node has access to a large pool of resources, par. 36 and 49 ]; it also takes advantage the idled resources by sharing it with other network devices for a more efficient use of the spare resources by employing virtualization so that those resources do not sit idle when that particular node does not need them [par. 44-45 and 48-49].
As for the limitation that the CPU and core are separately offlining, MacNamara teaches [par. 49-50] resources such as core and memory where memory is part of a separate node [i.e. node 0 208 may provide limited or no onboard memory or storage and primarily on distributed services, such as a memory server and a networked storage server]. Therefore memory is being onlined or offlined separately from the CPU cores . [see also par. 20-22, 36, 39 and 70-72, 132].
As for the argument that the usage increase overtime. In MacNamara, a network function virtualization NFV running on commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware within a virtualized environment. NFV provides a more agile and adaptable network. As network loads change, virtual network functions (VNFs) can be provisioned (“spun up”) or removed (“spun down”) to meet network demands [par. 55]. The demand scaling engine selects an appropriate CPU frequency for high bandwidth, latency-critical network traffic, in a hitless manner. This allows the frequency of the processor cores to ‘follow’ network load, achieving best power saving when network load is low but matching network bursts and spikes in traffic to deliver a general power management policy [par. 22-23]. This is in line with the claimed “ adjusting power consumption includes offlining and onlining CPUs and memory modules based on the network demand.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recites the limitation “maximum scale is sufficient for usage level over a lifetime” does not find support in the specification. The specification (par. 16) discusses determine maximum scale for the network device, i.e. running all cores and maximum frequency. However, nothing in the specification provides an understanding of how to determine a “maximum scale” that is “sufficient for usage level over a lifetime. Therefore, the claims do not enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The dependent claims are rejected due to their dependency on claims 1, 10 and 19. Correction/clarification required.
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 1-2, 5-11 and 14-20 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.
Claims 1, 10 and 19, the term “sufficient” in the limitation of “maximum scale is sufficient for usage level over a lifetime” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficient ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such it is unclear what level of a maximum scale is “sufficient” for usage level over a lifetime as claim.
The dependent claims are rejected due to their dependency on claims 1, 10 and 19. Correction/clarification required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-11, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as anticipated by MacNamara, 20180335824 (IDS filed 05/07/25).
Regarding claim 1, MacNamara teaches a method comprising:
determining, by a computing system (Fig. 1, provider 102), an expected scale of a network device (device/virtual device NFV, Fig. 5-8, demand scaling engine, par. 25-26, expected changes in demand, par. 93-98) wherein the network device comprises a plurality of hardware components [Fig. 1-4, hardware resources, par. 58-59, 70] that have been overprovisioned for initial usage levels, wherein the plurality of hardware components include a plurality of central processing unit (CPU) cores and a plurality of memory modules; [par. 20-21, 35-36, 49 and 79-80 a large pool of CPUS and memory may be dynamically -provisioned between a number of nodes, so that each node has access to a large pool of resources; each server 146 may provide multiple processor slots, with each slot accommodating a processor having four to eight cores, along with sufficient memory for the cores to provision for increase tin capability and traffic volume i.e. overprovisioned for initial usage levels;]
comparing, by the computing system, the expected scale to a maximum scale
of the network device [Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, block 706 thresholds/policy for scale up/down; Par. 0102-0103, 136, 142 In block 606, the demand scaling engine calculates a current capability for the processor and determine either that a scale up/down based on performance headroom; compare the network demand data to scaleup criterion]
adjusting, by the computing system and based on the comparing, power consumption of the network device (Fig. 6, 610 and 612, par. 103-105step 610 and 612, scale up or down based criterion, see also Fig. 8) wherein adjusting power consumption includes:
offlining one or more of the plurality of CPU cores in the network device and separately offlining one or more of the plurality of memory modules in of the hardware components of the network device; and onlining, by the computing system over time and as usage levels increase over the lifetime of the network device, one or more of the offlined CPU cores and one or more of the offlined memory modules [ par. 36, dynamically provisioned between a number of nodes. Par. 55, 81, and 107, NFV provides a more agile and adaptable network. As network loads change, virtual network functions (VNFs) can be provisioned (“spun up”) or removed (“spun down”) to meet network demands. Demand scaling engine 720 may receive policy directives from a control node to activate or deactivate resources 704, as well as thresholds and policies for when to scale up and scale down. Par. 49-53, large pool of high-speed or specialized memory may be dynamically provisioned between node in a distributed manner, i.e. separately provisioned. See also Par. 20-22, 36, 39 and 70-72].
Claim 2. MacNamara teaches the method of claim 1, wherein adjusting power consumption of the network device further includes: reducing a frequency at which at least one of the CPU cores are clocked (par. 105. Scaling down processor speed, i.e., reducing frequency, see also par. 143 and 147) .
Claim 5. MacNamara teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the computing system, an updated expected scale of the network device; and further adjusting, by the computing system and based on the updated expected scale, power consumption of the network device (Par. 96, demand scaling block 520 instructs the core frequency to step up or down based on changes to the incoming traffic load…to proactively meet expected changes in demand).
Claim 6. MacNamara teaches the method of claim 5, wherein further adjusting power consumption includes: onlining, based on updated expected scale, one or more of the hardware components (par. 19, demand scaling engine that is highly responsive to instant network and processor demands. par. 107, the policy from the orchestrator may affect logical blocks, such as instructions to activate resources).
Claim 7. MacNamara teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the computing system is included within the network device (Fig. 4, par. 69, In the embodiment depicted, platforms 402A, 402B, and 402C, along with a data center management platform 406 and data analytics engine 404 are interconnected via network 408. In other embodiments, a computer system may include any suitable number of (i.e., one or more) platforms).
Claim 8. MacNamara teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the network device is a router (par. 59, VNF 4 316, which is a router,) and wherein determining the expected scale of the router includes: determining information about convergence capabilities of the router (par. 19-22, logic to carry out the demand scaling function includes comprehensive assessment of different demands on the network and hardware resources and their capabilities, and provide scaling factors to achieve best power saving)
Regarding claim 10, MacNamara teaches a system (Fig 1-4) a storage device; and processing circuitry having access to the storage device (par. 54 and 69) and configured to perform the method as recited in claim 1 and therefore rejected accordingly.
Claim 11, 15-17 repeat the limitation of claim 2, 5-8 respectively and therefore are rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 19, MacNamara teaches a non-transitory computer media comprising instruction (par. 54) to perform the method as recited in claim 1 and therefore rejected accordingly.
Claim 20 repeats the limitation of claim 5 and therefore is rejected accordingly
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 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacNamara in view of Lee, US 20160239074 A1 (submitted in IDS filed 05/07/25).
Regarding claim 9. MacNamara teaches the method of claim 8, wherein determining the expected scale according to at least one policy to predict the expected scale (par. 96, expected demand scaling) based on at least one of a configuration associated with the router, specifications associated with the router, switching operations, CPU utilization, core utilization, or memory utilization. (par. 19-23, 107;, logic to carry out the demand scaling function includes comprehensive assessment of different demands on the network and hardware resources and their capabilities, and provide scaling factors to achieve best power saving based on a power management policy) .
However, MacNamara does not specifically teaches applying a machine learning model to predict the expected scaling of resources (control . In analogous art of power management, Lee teaches using machine learning based performance and energy module to identify workload behavior and predict optimal power control of the resources (par. 25, 28 and 121) to achieve optimal power configuration.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art prior to the effective filing date, to implement the use of machine learning model to predict the expected scale (controlling policy) to save energy without adversely affecting or sacrifice performance (Lee, par. 29)
Claim 18 repeats the limitation of claim 9 and therefore is rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rahardjo 20140208136 teaches information handling systems (or rack systems) are intentionally overprovisioned, i.e., by providing a main PSU having a higher power-supply capacity than initially required by system power-consuming components in order to provide enough power capability to accommodate future upgrades [par. 3 and 5-6]
Kamaran US 20220121563 teaches over-provisioning taken into account lifetime and unexpected workload of storage device [par. 0029]
Patenaude US 20250328925 [par. 20] teaches forecasting may aid pre-emptive scaling and in preparing for future requirements, thus ensuring that computing resources are neither underutilized due to over-provisioning nor overstrained by unexpected demand, thereby optimizing energy resources.
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 KIM HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-4147. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00am-4:0pm.
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.
/KIM HUYNH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights