DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 11, and 15-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5, the phrase “energy-providing devices” is used. However, later in the claim (e.g., lines 9 and 11), the phrase “energy-producing devices” is used. The same phrase is used in Claims 2, 5, 7, 11, 15, 16, and 17. Since these phrases appear to be referring to the same devices, the same terminology should be used through the claims in order to provide consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11, 12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0089601) and Leslie et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0082224).
Regarding Claim 1, Patil discloses a computer-implemented system for dispatching devices in a computer data center (paragraph 0002), the system comprising:
a plurality of energy-using devices that provide cooling and related support to computers in the computer data center (paragraph 0022; i.e., chillers);
a plurality of energy-providing devices that provide power to the energy-using devices (paragraph 0022; i.e., the dedicated power supplies for the various chillers); and
a dispatcher programmed to:
(a) identify future energy loads for the computer data center and available energy-using and energy-producing devices using data received from sources internal to the computer data center and sources external to the computer data center (paragraphs 0030-0031),
(b) select particular ones of the available energy-using and energy-producing devices to serve the identified future energy loads (paragraphs 0032-0033; i.e., individual/particular chillers together with associated power supplies can be selected and dispatched), and
(c) generate control signals to cause the selected particular ones of the available energy-using and energy-producing devices to serve the identified future energy loads (paragraph 0035; i.e., the selection/sequencing/dispatching operations would include generating control signals to the chillers and associated power supplies so that they will serve the identified future loads).
Patil does not expressly disclose wherein the selection (i) includes identifying, in coordination, both of one or more particular energy-using devices and one or more particular energy-producing devices, from among groups of such devices that are operable and available to the computer data center, and (ii) is based on a determination of which energy-using and energy-producing devices will adequately cover the identified future energy loads and will best address a selectable operational goal for the computer data center.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., data center control techniques), Leslie teaches wherein the selection (i) includes identifying, in coordination, both of one or more particular energy-using devices and one or more particular energy-producing devices, from among groups of such devices that are operable and available to the computer data center (paragraphs 0028-0029; i.e., a plan is generated that will provide adequate power and other resources to process a predicted workload; this includes both power supplying equipment [equivalent to the claimed “energy-producing devices”] as well as “other electrical equipment”; Leslie states that “other electrical equipment” may include “devices such as … heating, ventilating, air conditioning (HVAC) units” [paragraph 0052], which is equivalent to the claimed “energy-using devices”), and (ii) is based on a determination of which energy-using and energy-producing devices (e.g., which power supplies and which other devices such as HVAC units) will adequately cover the identified future energy loads and will best address a selectable operational goal (paragraph 0004; i.e., a requirement such as a statutory requirement that the data center must abide by) for the computer data center (paragraph 0028).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Leslie’s teachings of data center control techniques with the teachings of Patil, for the purpose of ensuring that the predicted workload will be able to be processed without any problems (i.e., by ensuring that adequate energy-producing and energy-using devices are up and running when the workload is required to be processed).
Regarding Claim 2, Patil discloses wherein the energy-using devices comprise pumps for cooling water, chillers (paragraph 0022), or fans, and
the energy-providing devices comprise a grid electrical connection (paragraph 0022; i.e., power supplies of the type disclosed in the reference are known in the art to receive power from an AC main line such as a power grid) and a large-scale battery system.
Regarding Claim 3, Patil discloses wherein the data received from sources passes through an aggregation layer that consolidates information about inputs to the dispatcher (paragraphs 0030-0031; i.e., the “information” can include internal/external temperatures, thermal mass, cooling load forecast, individual chiller ratings, characteristics, performance curves, etc.).
Regarding Claim 7, Patil discloses wherein the system is further programmed to update a learning model of energy-using devices and energy-providing devices using data about recent performance by the devices, wherein the updating stores data indicative of how particular devices perform and parameters on which the devices perform (paragraph 0033; i.e., the “data” is the cooling load required by each of the chillers in recent days).
Regarding Claim 8, Patil discloses wherein the dispatcher is further programmed to dispatch computing processes performed by the computer data center, so as to better meet cooling or electrical needs of the computer data center (paragraph 0047; i.e., the computer 400 controls the chillers [equivalent to the claimed “computing processes performed by the computer data center, so as to better meet cooling or electrical needs of the computer data center”] and further runs an operating system, which also dispatches computing processes).
Regarding Claim 9, Patil discloses wherein the dispatcher is further programmed to produce load shaping of a cooling or compute load according to a predetermined load profile (paragraphs 0035-0041; i.e., performance curves [the claimed “load shaping”] can be developed for the cooling load; each chiller will have its own “load profile” that consists of the performance curve).
Regarding Claim 11, Patil discloses a computer-implemented method (paragraphs 0044-0045) for dispatching energy-using (paragraph 0022; i.e., chillers) and energy-providing devices (paragraph 0022; i.e., the dedicated power supplies for the various chillers) in a computer data center, the method comprising:
determining a level of energy needed to be delivered to provide future continuous operation of the computer data center (paragraphs 0030-0031);
selecting, from among the plurality of energy-using devices, one or more devices to provide cooling for the computer data center to meet the level of energy needed to be delivered (paragraphs 0032-0033; i.e., individual/particular chillers together with associated power supplies can be selected and dispatched);
selecting, from among the plurality of energy-producing devices, one or more devices to provide electrical power for operating the selected one or more devices to provide cooling (paragraphs 0032-0033); and
generating control information from a central dispatcher for the computer data center, to cause the selected one or more devices to provide cooling and the selected one or more devices to provide electrical power, to be operated in coordination for a determined time period (paragraphs 0033 and 0035; i.e., the selection/sequencing/dispatching operations would include generating control signals to the chillers and associated power supplies so that they will serve the identified future loads).
Patil does not expressly disclose wherein the energy-using and energy-providing devices are (i) identified, in coordination, from among groups of such devices that are operable and available to the computer data center, and (ii) identified based on a determination of which energy-using and energy-producing devices will adequately cover the identified future energy loads and will best address a selectable operational goal for the computer data center.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., data center control techniques), Leslie teaches wherein the energy-using and energy-providing devices are (i) identified, in coordination, from among groups of such devices that are operable and available to the computer data center (paragraphs 0028-0029; i.e., a plan is generated that will provide adequate power and other resources to process a predicted workload; this includes both power supplying equipment [equivalent to the claimed “energy-producing devices”] as well as “other electrical equipment”; Leslie states that “other electrical equipment” may include “devices such as … heating, ventilating, air conditioning (HVAC) units” [paragraph 0052], which are all equivalent to the claimed “energy-using devices”), and (ii) identified based on a determination of which energy-using and energy-producing devices (e.g., which power supplies and which other devices such as HVAC units) will adequately cover the identified future energy loads and will best address a selectable operational goal (paragraph 0004; i.e., a requirement such as a statutory requirement that the data center must abide by) for the computer data center (paragraph 0028).
The motivation discussed above with regards to Claim 1 applies equally as well to Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12, Patil discloses wherein the control information is passed through an aggregation layer that consolidates information about inputs to the central dispatcher (paragraphs 0030-0031; i.e., the “information” can include internal/external temperatures, thermal mass, cooling load forecast, individual chiller ratings, characteristics, performance curves, etc.).
Regarding Claim 17, Patil discloses updating a learning model of energy-using devices and energy-providing devices using data about recent performance by the devices, wherein the updating stores data indicative of how particular devices perform and parameters on which the devices perform (paragraph 0033; i.e., the “data” is the cooling load required by each of the chillers in recent days).
Regarding Claim 18, Patil discloses scheduling dispatch of computing processes performed by the computer data center, so as to better meet cooling or electrical needs of the computer data center (paragraph 0047; i.e., the computer 400 controls the chillers [equivalent to the claimed “computing processes performed by the computer data center, so as to better meet cooling or electrical needs of the computer data center”] and further runs an operating system, which also dispatches computing processes).
Regarding Claim 19, Patil discloses wherein scheduling the dispatch comprises load shaping according to a predetermined load profile (paragraphs 0035-0041; i.e., performance curves [the claimed “load shaping”] can be developed for the cooling load; each chiller will have its own “load profile” that consists of the performance curve).
Regarding Claim 20, Patil discloses wherein scheduling the dispatch comprises separately scheduling dispatch of computing processes for multiple different tenants in a multi-tenant computer data center (paragraph 0002; i.e., although the reference does not expressly disclose that the data center is for multiple tenants, this concept is very well known in the art [i.e., Official Notice is taken] and is used for the purpose of reducing the cost of each tenant [i.e., paying for only the part of the data center usage that they actually use] as evidenced by Yi et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0200587, paragraph 0003).
Claims 4-6, 13-15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Bryant et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0157563).
Regarding Claim 4, Patil does not expressly disclose wherein the system is arranged to:
receive, at the dispatcher, information characterizing aspects of multiple geographically-separated data center sites, and
select particular ones of the geographically-separated data center sites to serve the identified future energy needs based on a determination by the system that the selected particular ones of the geographically-separated data center sites maximize of minimize one or more defined criteria for data center operation.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., data center power configuration techniques), Bryant teaches wherein the system is arranged to:
receive, at the dispatcher (Figure 3, item 340), information characterizing aspects of multiple geographically-separated data center sites (Figure 3, item 350, paragraph 0036; i.e., the power manager 340 receives information from multiple remote data centers about their current power situation), and
select particular ones of the geographically-separated data center sites to serve the identified future energy needs based on a determination by the system that the selected particular ones of the geographically-separated data center sites maximize of minimize one or more defined criteria for data center operation (Figure 3, paragraphs 0035-0036; i.e., the chose remote data center 350 “maximizes” a defined criteria for data center operation in that it is receiving grid power 375 rather than backup power 380).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Bryant’s teachings of data center power configuration techniques with the teachings of Patil, for the purpose of ensuring that workloads can continue to operate in the event of power failure in the primary data center.
Regarding Claim 5, Bryant teaches wherein the system is further programmed to:
identify at one or more of the multiple computer data centers that communication with the dispatcher has been interrupted (Figure 3, paragraph 0035; i.e., eventually the backup power supply would become depleted so that the connection 200 would become interrupted), and
shift control over energy-using and energy-providing devices at the particular ones of the geographically-separated computer data center sites from global control to local control according to a predetermined control scheme (Figure 3, item 390, paragraph 0036).
Regarding Claim 6, Bryant teaches wherein the system is further programmed to:
identify that communication with the dispatcher has resumed (paragraph 0035; i.e., primary electric power can be restored),
provide to the dispatcher information about current status of the particular ones of the geographically-separated computer data centers (paragraph 0036), and
receive, in response and from the dispatcher, information to cause continued future control of energy-providing and energy-using devices at the particular ones of the geographically-separated computer data centers (Figure 6, item 660, paragraph 0047).
Regarding Claim 13, Bryant teaches wherein the central dispatcher (Figure 3, item 340) is geographically remote from a plurality of geographically-separated data centers (Figure 3, item 350), and
the control information causes particular ones of the plurality of geographically-separated data centers to perform computer process in favor to other ones of the plurality of geographically-separated data centers based on a determination that the particular ones are more optimal for a defined criteria than are the other ones (Figure 3, paragraphs 0035-0036; i.e., the chose remote data center 350 maximizes a defined criteria for data center operation in that it is receiving grid power 375 rather than backup power 380).
Regarding Claim 14, Bryant teaches identifying at one or more of the multiple computer data centers that communication by the particular ones of the geographically-separated data centers with the central dispatcher has been interrupted (Figure 3, paragraph 0035; i.e., eventually the backup power supply would become depleted so that the connection 200 would become interrupted), and
shifting over energy-using and energy-providing devices at the particular ones of the geographically-separated computer data center sites from global control to local control according to a predetermined control scheme (Figure 3, item 390, paragraph 0036).
Regarding Claim 15, Bryant teaches identifying that communication with the central dispatcher has resumed (paragraph 0035; i.e., primary electric power can be restored),
providing to the central dispatcher information about current status of the particular ones of the geographically-separated computer data centers (paragraph 0036), and
receiving, in response and from the central dispatcher, information to cause continued future control of energy-providing and energy-using devices at the particular ones of the geographically-separated computer data centers (Figure 6, item 660, paragraph 0047).
Regarding Claim 21, Bryant teaches identifying that the computer data center is in a degraded performance status (paragraph 0035; i.e., the primary power source has become interrupted), and
dispatching energy-using devices and energy-providing devices according to a predetermined low-energy safe-mode protocol in coordination with the reboot of the computer data center (Figure 3, paragraphs 0035-0036; i.e., the primary data center 310 will work with remote data center [the claimed “low-energy safe-mode protocol”] so that it can handle the workload until power is restored for the primary data center 310 [“reboot of the computer data center”]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil and Yi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0200587).
Regarding Claim 10, Patil discloses a computer-implemented system for dispatching devices in a computer data center (paragraph 0002), the system comprising:
a plurality of energy-using devices that provide cooling and related support to computers in the computer data center (paragraph 0022; i.e., chillers);
a plurality of energy-providing devices that provide power to the energy-using devices (paragraph 0022; i.e., the dedicated power supplies for the various chillers); and
a dispatcher programmed to:
(a) identify future energy loads for the computer data center and available energy-using and energy-producing devices using data received from sources internal to the computer data center and sources external to the computer data center (paragraphs 0030-0031),
(b) select particular ones of the available energy-using and energy-producing devices to serve the identified future energy loads (paragraphs 0032-0033; i.e., individual/particular chillers can be selected and dispatched),
(c) generate control signals to cause the selected particular ones of the available energy-using and energy-producing devices to serve the identified future energy loads (paragraph 0035; i.e., the selection/sequencing/dispatching operations would include generating control signals to the chillers and associated power supplies so that they will serve the identified future loads);
(d) dispatch computing processes performed by the computer data center, so as to better meet cooling or electrical needs of the computer data center (paragraph 0047; i.e., the computer 400 controls the chillers [equivalent to the claimed “computing processes performed by the computer data center, so as to better meet cooling or electrical needs of the computer data center”] and further runs an operating system, which also dispatches computing processes),
(e) produce load shaping of a cooling or compute load according to a predetermined load profile (paragraphs 0035-0041; i.e., performance curves [the claimed “load shaping”] can be developed for the cooling load; each chiller will have its own “load profile” that consists of the performance curve).
Patil does not expressly disclose (f) separately schedule dispatch of computing processes for multiple different tenants in a multi-tenant computer data center.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., data center control techniques), Yi teaches (f) separately schedule dispatch of computing processes for multiple different tenants in a multi-tenant computer data center (paragraph 0003).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Yi’s teachings of data center control techniques with the teachings of Patil, for the purpose of increasing utilization of computing resources in the data center (see Yi, paragraph 0003).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Heckerman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0337337).
Regarding Claim 16, Patil discloses wherein the plurality of power-supplying devices comprises distributed energy resources (DERs), and dispatching comprises virtually partitioning DER capacity for different uses in the computer data center.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., data center power configuration techniques), Heckerman teaches wherein the plurality of power-supplying devices comprises distributed energy resources (DERs), and dispatching comprises virtually partitioning DER capacity for different uses in the computer data center (paragraph 0035).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Heckerman’s teachings of data center power configuration techniques with the teachings of Patil, for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of the data center power systems as well as increasing purchasing leverage and lower prices (see Heckerman, paragraph 0035).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because each reference discloses a system for identifying future loads in a data center.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/10/26 with respect to Claim 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “the same dispatcher that dispatches energy-using devices and energy-generating devices *also* dispatches the computing processes of the data center. Nothing in Patil suggests reaching across from the cooling and electrical sides of the data center, to the compute side, and dispatching all three areas so that the data center's needs are met-as claim 10 recites.” Response, page 11. The examiner disagrees. The examiner disagrees. Figures 4 and 5 show a computer 400 that schedules cooling system chillers (see paragraph 0047, which the examiner had originally interpreted as the claimed “dispatching the computing processes”) but also dispatches other computing processes within the data center (see paragraph 0042). More specifically, the computer 400 runs an operating system. Operating systems are known in the art to dispatch computing processes. With regards to the specific phase “so as to better meet cooling or electrical needs of the computer data center”, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “load shaping, as explained in the pending application at paragraph 0080 is the affirmative affecting of an computing or cooling load (e.g., by increasing or decreasing the level of compute that a data center will perform) so that the load does not get too high, for example-so as to ‘flatten’ the curve and avoid over-loads. That is wholly distinct from the shapes or curves of Patil, which refer to input/output characteristics of a particular chiller, and not to the affirmative act of shaping a load in a data center.” Response, page 11. However, the argued claim does not contain this feature. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., load shaping is the affirmative affecting of an computing or cooling load [e.g., by increasing or decreasing the level of compute that a data center will perform] so that the load does not get too high, for example-so as to "flatten" the curve and avoid over-loads) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues “feature (f) does not merely recite that the claimed system operates in a multi-tenant data center, but recites that the dispatch of different computing processes is performed by a dispatcher that *also* selects and dispatches energy-using and energy-generating devices and dispatches the computing processes in coordination with that other dispatch activity.” Response, pages 11-12. However, newly added reference Yi et al., which is used as evidence of the examiner’s previous Official Notice, teaches dispatching different processes to different tenants in a data center. See Yi, paragraph 0003. The combination of Patil with Yi would therefore result in a single “dispatcher” that performs all of the claimed functions. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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 FAISAL M ZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm, alternate Fridays.
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, Andrew J. Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. 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.
/FAISAL M ZAMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights