DETAILED ACTION
This is Final Office Action in response to amendment filed on March 19, 2026. Claims 2-19 have been cancelled. Claims 21-38 are newly added. Claims 1 and 20-38 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the IDSs filed on March 19, 2026 have been considered and entered into record. A copy of the signed or initialed IDS is hereby attached.
Response to Arguments
The claimed amendment does not overcome the rejection under 35 USC § 101. The claims continue to recite patent ineligible subject matter under the framework set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, as explained in rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 20-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental process without significantly more. The claims recite “determining pluralities of forecasted database tasks from a multitude of database tasks, access database task-parallelism data regarding processing core resource commitments for the multiple of database tasks, access processing core resource power consumption data, determining a plurality of forecasted power data for the plurality of data centers based on the pluralities of forecasted database tasks, access a plurality of power parameters for the plurality of data centers, and determining an energy utilization-based scheduling of execution of the pluralities of forecasted database tasks”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps can be performed manually in human mind. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim here merely uses the processor as a tool to perform the otherwise mental processes. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii). Thus, the limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
ANALYSIS under Revised Guidance of 2019 PEG:
Statutory Category:
The claims 1 and 20-38 are directed to one of the four statutory category (claims 1 and claim 21-29 a system or a machine, and claim 20 and claim 30-38 a non-transitory computer readable storage medium).
Step 2A – Prong 1: Does the claim recite a Judicial Exception (e.g. abstract idea)? (See MPEP§§2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claim 1 recites, at its core, the limitations focusing on forecasting tasks, accessing data (e.g., task parallelism, power consumption), and determining schedules based on constraints (e.g., performance and energy). These limitations can be characterized as abstract concepts, such as mental processes (e.g., planning and scheduling) and a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., resource allocation, workload scheduling). Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under step 2A, prong 1.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application? (See MPEP§§2106.04(II)(A)(2), 2106.04(d)).
Claim 1 recites additional elements such as “pluralities of processing core resources”, and “data centers at plural geolocations”; however, these elements are generic computing components (i.e., no specific architecture or improvement). The steps are functional (e.g., determine, access, and schedule). There is no clear technological improvement to computer functionality itself. The claim does not recite any improvement to storage architecture, any improvement to processor efficiency at a technical level, or any specific mechanism for reducing energy usage (e.g., hardware control, or a caching strategy). Instead, the claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, rather than improving the computer itself. Therefore, the claim does not provide meaningful integration into a practical application and fails to meet step 2A, prong 2.
Step 2B: significantly more or amounting to an incentive concept. (See MPEP§2106.05).
Does claim 1 recite “significantly more” than the abstract idea? The claim recites additional elements such as pluralities of processing core resources of pluralities of computing nodes, computing devices, computing device clusters, and a plurality of data centers; however, these elements represent aggregation, not invention. There is no unconventional hardware and no specific algorithm (only high level “determine” steps), and there are no concrete implementation details. These elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, and are described functionally rather than structurally. The claim does not recite a specific scheduling algorithm, any technical implementation detail (e.g., a queue structure, hardware signaling, or power- state transitions), or any a non-convention data structure or system architecture. Thus, the additional elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim fails under step 2B because the mere implementation on a computer does not provide significantly more.
Claim 20 is rejected due to the similar analysis of claim 1.
Dependent claim 21 recites “inputting data of a dataset of a plurality of datasets; storing the data of the dataset of the plurality of datasets in short-term storage in accordance with a short-term storage scheme; storing the data of the dataset of the plurality of datasets in long-term storage in accordance with a long-term storage scheme data rebuilding of a long-termed storage data segment of the dataset; data transfer of the data of the dataset; performing a query optimization function of a plurality of query optimization functions on a query to at least partially optimize the query, wherein the query is one of a plurality of queries; and executing at least a portion of an optimized query of a plurality of optimized queries” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 22 recites “wherein the processing core resource power consumption data comprises one or more of: power consumption data for a read operation; power consumption data for a write operation; power consumption data for a data processing operation; and power consumption data for a data communication operation” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 23 recites “wherein the first forecasted power data comprises one or more of: forecasted maximum peak power data for the first data center; forecasted power consumption during the upcoming time period for the first data center; and forecasted power consumption deviations during the upcoming time period for the first data center…” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 24 recites “wherein the database system power parameters comprises one or more of: a maximum peak power threshold; a maximum power consumption over time threshold; a maximum power consumption deviation; and a desired power consumption deviation” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 25 recites “wherein a first power parameters of the plurality of power parameters comprises one or more of: a maximum peak power threshold for the first data center; a maximum power consumption over time threshold for the first data center; a maximum power consumption deviation for the first data center; a desired peak power target for the first data center; a desired power consumption over time target for the first data center; and a desired power consumption deviation for the first data center” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 26 recites “first data that includes a first number of processing core resources of the pluralities of processing core resources to perform the given database task in accordance with a first iteration of the first desired database task performance level; and second data that includes a second number of processing core resources of the pluralities of processing core resources to perform the given database task in accordance with a second iteration of the first desired database task performance level..” extra solution activity under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 27 recites “determining whether forecasted power data for the database system is compliant with the database system power parameters, wherein the forecasted power data for the database system is a compilation of the plurality of forecasted power data for the plurality of data centers; determining whether the plurality of forecasted power data is compliant with the plurality of power parameters; and scheduling execution of the plurality of forecasted database tasks as forecasted” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 28 recites “identify one more of the database system power parameters for which the forecasted power data for the database system is not compliant; determine whether adjusting timing of parallel execution of specific database tasks of the pluralities of forecasted database tasks by at least some of the pluralities of processing core resources will resolve the noncompliance with the one more of the database system power parameters;…adjust the timing of the parallel execution of the specific database tasks…” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 29 recites “identify one more of the first power parameters for which the first forecasted power data is not compliant; determine whether adjusting timing of parallel execution of specific database tasks of the pluralities of forecasted database tasks by processing core resources of the first data center will resolve the noncompliance with the one more of the first power parameters;…and notify an administrative computing device of the database system of the noncompliance” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 30 recites “inputting data of a dataset of a plurality of datasets; storing the data of the dataset of the plurality of datasets in short-term storage in accordance with a short-term storage scheme; storing the data of the dataset of the plurality of datasets in long-term storage in accordance with a long-term storage scheme data rebuilding of a long-termed storage data segment of the dataset; data transfer of the data of the dataset; performing a query optimization function of a plurality of query optimization functions on a query to at least partially optimize the query, wherein the query is one of a plurality of queries; and executing at least a portion of an optimized query of a plurality of optimized queries” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 31 recites “wherein the processing core resource power consumption data comprises one or more of: power consumption data for a read operation; power consumption data for a write operation; power consumption data for a data processing operation; and power consumption data for a data communication operation” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 32 recites “wherein the first forecasted power data comprises one or more of: forecasted maximum peak power data for the first data center; forecasted power consumption during the upcoming time period for the first data center; and forecasted power consumption deviations during the upcoming time period for the first data center.” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 33 recites “wherein the database system power parameters comprises one or more of: a maximum peak power threshold; a maximum power consumption over time threshold; a maximum power consumption deviation; a desired peak power target; a desired power consumption over time target; and a desired power consumption deviation” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 34 recites “wherein a first power parameters of the plurality of power parameters comprises one or more of: a maximum peak power threshold for the first data center; a maximum power consumption over time threshold for the first data center; a maximum power consumption deviation for the first data center; a desired peak power target for the first data center; a desired power consumption over time target for the first data center; and a desired power consumption deviation for the first data center…” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 35 recites “first data that includes a first number of processing core resources of the pluralities of processing core resources to perform the given database task in accordance with a first iteration of the first desired database task performance level; and second data that includes a second number of processing core resources of the pluralities of processing core resources to perform the given database task in accordance with a second iteration of the first desired database task performance level” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 36 recites “determining whether forecasted power data for the database system is compliant with the database system power parameters, wherein the forecasted power data for the database system is a compilation of the plurality of forecasted power data for the plurality of data centers; determining whether the plurality of forecasted power data is compliant with the plurality of power parameters; and… scheduling execution of the plurality of forecasted database tasks as forecasted” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 37 recites “identify one more of the database system power parameters for which the forecasted power data for the database system is not compliant; determine whether adjusting timing of parallel execution of specific database tasks of the pluralities of forecasted database tasks by at least some of the pluralities of processing core resources will resolve the noncompliance with the one more of the database system power parameters; …and reducing number of the pluralities of forecasted database tasks” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 38 recites “identify one more of the first power parameters for which the first forecasted power data is not compliant; determine whether adjusting timing of parallel execution of specific database tasks of the pluralities of forecasted database tasks by processing core resources of the first data center will resolve the noncompliance with the one more of the first power parameters; and notify an administrative computing device of the database system of the noncompliance” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 20-38 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jilk et al. (US 6938048 B1) disclose universal task management system, method and product for automatically managing remote workers, including automatically training the workers.
De Lind can Wijngaardent et al. (US 20120210325 A1) disclose method and apparatus of smart power management for mobile communication terminals using power thresholds.
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 HANH B THAI whose telephone number is (571)272-4029. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 7-4:30.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/HANH B THAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
April 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights