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 .
This application has been examined. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The Group and/or Art Unit location of your application in the PTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Group Art Unit 2175.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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, 8, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention:
(i) Ambiguous antecedent basis for “the identifying” (claims 5 and 7, and by extension 6)
Claim 1 recites two separate gerund steps introduced as “identifying”: (1) “identifying, by the data processing system, that a [PDU] is operably connected …,” and (2) “identifying, by the data processing system, a pairing state for the PDU.” Claim 1 itself then uses the definite article to refer back to only the second occurrence (“in a first instance of the identifying where the pairing state for the PDU is unpaired”), which is clear enough in context because it is tied to “the pairing state.” Claims 5 and 7, however, recite “in a second instance of the performing …” (claim 5, referring unambiguously to the “performing” step) and “in a second instance of the identifying where the pairing state for the PDU is paired” (claim 7). Because claim 1 defines two separate antecedent “identifying” steps, a strict reading leaves it unclear, standing alone, which “identifying” claim 7 revisits, even though the appended “where” clause supplies enough context to resolve the ambiguity in practice. Consider amending claim 1 to name the two steps distinctly (e.g., “identifying that the PDU is connected” and “identifying the pairing state”) and having claims 7 (and similarly worded claims) refer back by name.
(ii) Subjective claim term “believes” (claim 8)
Claim 8 recites “obtaining … a response from the PDU, the response indicating characteristics of new power that the PDU believes is warranted for the data processing system.” The term “believes,” applied to a PDU, is not a term of art and does not identify any objective standard, algorithm, or measurable criterion by which the “belief” is formed or by which infringement could be assessed, potentially rendering the metes and bounds of the limitation unclear under Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014) and MPEP § 2173.05(b). The specification’s own language is similarly informal (“characteristics of power warranted for data processing system 102A,” [0135]) and does not supply an objective definition. Consider replacing “believes is warranted” with “determines is warranted” or “identifies as warranted.”
(iii) Antecedent basis for “distinct multi-function connections” (claim 11)
Claim 1 establishes “a multi-function connection” (singular) between “the data processing system” and “the PDU.” Claim 11 then recites that the PDU is adapted to “supply power source level power via distinct multi-function connections to at least the processing system,” introducing a plural “distinct multi-function connections” without clearly tying it back to “the multi-function connection” of claim 1, or clarifying whether “the multi-function connection” of claim 1 is one member of this newly introduced plural set. Clarifying language (e.g., “… via a plurality of multi-function connections including the multi-function connection”) would remove the ambiguity.
(iv) Relationship between the out-of-band/in-band “communication channel[s]” and “the multi-function connection” (claims 12-13)
Claim 12 recites that “the data processing system is connected to the PDU via an out-of-band communication channel that runs through a network module,” and claim 13 adds an “in-band communication channel that also runs through the network module.” Claim 1 already recites that the data processing system and PDU are connected “via a multi-function connection.” As written, claims 12–13 do not state whether the recited out-of-band/in-band channels are channels carried over the same multi-function connection (consistent with spec. [0018]–[0028]’s description of sideband/in-band paths through network module 160) or a second, additional connection between the data processing system and the PDU. Under BRI this is ambiguous and should be clarified (e.g., “wherein the multi-function connection comprises an out-of-band communication channel …”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 t which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5-7, 14, 18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Aimone et al. (“Aimone”) (US No. 10,642,321) in view of Marlin et al. (“Marlin”) (US No. 9,688,155).
In order to expedite and avoid piecemeal prosecution, the following rejection is made to the extent that the claims are understood, by considering those elements which are understood and interpreting their function in a manner which is consistent with the recited goals of the claims, and then applying the best available art.
The examiner relies on the entire teachings of Aimone and Marlin references; the applicant should carefully consider the entire teachings of the above-mentioned references to better understand the examiner’s position.
In regard to claims 1, 14, and 18 recite the same operations in method, medium, and system form and are addressed together; claim 1 language is quoted, with the corresponding claim-14/18 language understood to be rejected on the identical basis (claim 14 additionally requiring only a “non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform” the recited operations, and claim 18 additionally requiring only “a processor” and “a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions” - both of which are met by Aimone’s disclosure of “one or more data processors and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing instructions that when executed on the one or more data processors, cause the one or more data processors to perform actions,” Aimone, claim 1).
Aimone discloses a data processing system (equipment module 106 of Aimone, positioned in a computing rack) identifying that a PDU (Aimone’s power distribution unit 108) is operably connected via a connection that is itself “a multi-function connection … adapted to both supply power … and facilitate communication,” as claimed. Specifically, Aimone discloses that “[t]he equipment module communication circuit and power distribution unit communication circuit communicate with one another using the electrical cable of the equipment module, connection cable, and the electrical cable of the power distribution unit as a transmission medium” (see Aimone description, discussing FIG. 2A/2B, col. 5-7), i.e., the very cable that supplies electrical power from the PDU’s outlet to the equipment module simultaneously carries the identifying-information signals - the claimed dual power/communication function.
PNG
media_image1.png
906
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Aimone further discloses “identifying … a pairing state for the PDU” in that its communication circuits exchange “identifying information” either periodically (“[e]ach equipment module communication circuit … may generate a serial number of the associated equipment module … at ongoing intervals”) or on demand (“responsive to a query signal transmitted by the power distribution unit communication circuit”), and the PDU/computing system uses the result to “generat[e] a report that includes the identifying information” (see Aimone, claim 1, col. 1-2, 7) - i.e., the system identifies, and can report, whether/which equipment module is recognized as associated (paired) with which PDU outlet, corresponding to applicant’s spec. [0093]–[0100] (PDU 104, power port(s) 192A–N, power source 180A–N, multi-function connections 105A–N) and [0121] (pairing flag).
Aimone discloses identification/reporting of connectivity, but it does not disclose (i) a binary pairing state that is changed from “unpaired” to “paired” by a “pairing process,” (ii) any credential negotiated as part of that process, or (iii) “collaboratively enforcing … a new power state … to obtain an updated data processing system” conditioned on the outcome of that pairing process, followed by the updated system “providing … a computer-implemented service.” Aimone’s disclosed use for the identification exchange is generating an informational report for a user interface, not conditioning power delivery on the outcome. In the same field of endeavor, Marlin discloses exactly this pairing-then-power-enforcement logic, albeit in the mobile-device-charging field. Marlin [see col. 5-6] discloses that “the authenticator has confirmation that an identified device is connected to the facility, and permits the recharging to proceed” - a pairing/authentication outcome directly gating whether power delivery proceeds. Marlin [see col. 3:43-4:33] discloses establishing a shared credential as part of that pairing process: “a secure value, such as a secret key, that is stored at both the authenticator and the mobile device can be employed as the unique identifier.” Marlin [see col. 3-4] discloses that the authenticator will “authenticate the pairing of mobile device … with the first electric metering site … in response to the unique load pattern being detected” - i.e., a pairing process that changes the pairing state from unpaired to paired.
PNG
media_image2.png
642
489
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Marlin [see col. 3-4] further discloses that, once paired, the “[c]ontroller … upon receiving the message authenticating [the] mobile device, may control [a] load switch … to maintain a connection between [the] power source and [the] mobile device” - collaboratively enforcing a new (now fully authorized) power state involving action by both the device (drawing current per the negotiated pattern) and the power-source-side authenticator (setting the switch state), consistent with the claimed “collaboratively enforcing … by the data processing system and with the PDU.” The device then draws its intended charge/operates using that enforced power state - the “updated” power-consuming device “providing” its function, paralleling “providing, by the updated data processing system, a computer-implemented service” (any powered computing device performing its designed computing functions, as reflected generically in applicant’s own background discussion and spec. [0139]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include designing Aimone’s rack-mounted, communication-over-power-cable identification system would have recognized the desirability of gating power/service delivery on a genuine pairing/authentication outcome - rather than treating the identification exchange as merely informational - precisely because Aimone’s own stated purpose is to solve the problem of manual, “time consuming and error prone” topology mapping and its resulting risk of misconnected equipment; adding Marlin’s known pairing-and-power-gating technique to Aimone’s known power/communication-sharing PDU hardware is the combination of prior-art elements according to their established functions to yield the predictable result of only recognized/paired equipment receiving its normal operative power state, i.e., application of a known technique (credential-based pairing that conditions power-state enforcement) to a known device (a PDU/equipment-identification system) ready for the improvement, with predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416–17 (rationales (A), (D), and (G)).
In regard to claim 5, adds: “in a second instance of the performing where the pairing state for the PDU is not changed to paired: entering, by the data processing system, a waiting state.” Marlin [see col. 3:63-4:63] discloses precisely this branch: “If a valid load pattern is not detected, the first authenticator … may control the load switch … to open and disconnect the mobile device from the external power source. That is, the first authenticator … blocks charging of the mobile device.” A device that has been disconnected from/denied power pending a future successful pairing attempt is in a “waiting state” under BRI (consistent with applicant’s own spec. [0138], describing the waiting state as optionally “a power-off state” in which “power may not be distributed”). The same Aimone/Marlin combination and motivation of claim 1 applies directly.
In regard to claim 6, adds that “while in the waiting state, the data processing system attempts to connect to a second PDU until successful.” Marlin’s own system architecture already contemplates a plurality of candidate power/charging nodes rather than a single fixed pairing target: Marlin claim 1 discloses a mobile device that will “send a broadcast message to one or more of the plurality of nodes in the wireless communication network requesting a charging session, receive, in response to the broadcast message, a corresponding instruction from at least two of the plurality of nodes … to initiate a unique load pattern … [and] select one of the received instructions for execution.” Given a system already built around multiple candidate pairing/charging nodes and a device that selects among them, it would have been obvious to a POSITA - as nothing more than the routine, well-known practice of retry-on-failure/failover common to networked and redundant-power-supply system design generally (of which official notice is taken, subject to traverse) - to have the device, upon failing to pair with one node (per claim 5’s waiting-state teaching), simply proceed to attempt the same broadcast/selection procedure against another of the “plurality of nodes” until pairing succeeds. This is the combination of known elements (Marlin’s multi-node selection architecture and ordinary retry-until-success logic) according to their established functions, yielding the predictable result of eventual connection to an available, working node, KSR rationale (G).
In regard to claim 7, adds: “in a second instance of the identifying where the pairing state for the PDU is paired: collaboratively enforcing … the new power state … and providing … the computer-implemented service” - i.e., where the PDU is already paired, the pairing-process branch is skipped and the system proceeds directly to enforcement and service. Aimone’s identification exchange is explicitly designed to determine current connectivity/association status on an ongoing basis (“ongoing intervals” or query-response, discussed in Section 9.1), and Marlin [see col. 3-4] discloses that once “the authenticator has confirmation that an identified device is connected to the facility, and permits the recharging to proceed” - i.e., where the device is already recognized/paired, the system proceeds straight to permitting power delivery without repeating a full pairing negotiation. A POSITA implementing the Aimone/Marlin combination’s decision logic (of claim 1) would necessarily arrive at claim 7’s already-paired branch as the complementary, symmetric counterpart to the not-yet-paired branch already claimed in claim 1 - routine if/else program structure sharing the same downstream enforcement and service-provision steps regardless of which branch is taken, a predictable application of the same combination with no unexpected result, KSR rationale (G).
6. Claims 2-3, 15-16, 19-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Aimone in view of Marlin and further in view of Diab et al. (“Diab”) (US Pub No. 2014/0129854).
In regard to claims 2, 15, and 19 add that “collaboratively enforcing the new power state … comprises: obtaining, by the data processing system and from the PDU via the multi-function connection, information indicating the new power state for the data processing system.” The Aimone/Marlin combination of claim 1 already establishes bidirectional communication over the shared power/data connection (Aimone) and PDU-side control of the device’s power/switch state following pairing (Marlin); what neither reference states in so many words is that the PDU affirmatively transmits back, as a discrete data item over that connection, information describing the new power state, rather than simply applying it. In the same field of endeavor, Diab supplies this express teaching: in its “active mode of operation, the PSE applies a minimal amount of power … to power the PD, and the PD provides profile information to the PSE after being powered up,” following which “the PSE and/or the PD exchange profile information during the auto-negotiation mode of operation” and, “[b]ased on this profile information, the PSE can configure the power to be applied.” (see ¶ 39-44).
PNG
media_image3.png
938
721
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Diab further discloses that this negotiation culminates in the PSE-side controller “determin[ing], based on the profile information, how to configure power to be applied to the device” (Diab, claim 18, ¶ 41-44) - i.e., the power-sourcing equipment (corresponding to the claimed PDU) determines, and necessarily communicates or applies, power-configuration information to the powered device (the claimed data processing system) over the same link used for the profile/identification exchange. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Diab’s explicit configuration-information exchange with the Aimone/Marlin pairing-and-enforcement system would do so for the same reason PoE systems perform auto-negotiation at all - so that the powered device can operate consistently with (rather than merely be surprised by) the power state the source has decided to apply - a predictable, motivated combination of known elements (KSR rationale (G)).
In regard to claims 3, 16, and 20, further require that “the information is obtained using credentials established when the pairing state for the PDU is changed to paired.” This is taught by Marlin, which (as discussed in claim 1) discloses establishing “a secure value, such as a secret key, that is stored at both the authenticator and the mobile device” [see col. 3-4] specifically as part of the pairing/authentication process that changes the device from unpaired to paired/authenticated [see col. 5-6]. Combining this credential-establishment teaching with claim 2 combination’s (Ainome/Diab) transmission of power-configuration information over the shared connection. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the already-established pairing credential to secure or gate that subsequent information exchange - the natural and predictable use of a credential that has just been established for exactly this purpose (securing subsequent communications between the now-paired devices) - again a combination of known elements for their known purpose with predictable results.
Examiner's note:
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passages as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
If Applicant traverses any statement of Official Notice set forth above, documentary evidence will be provided in the next Office Action (MPEP § 2144.03(C)).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 4, 9-10, 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
8. Claims 8, 11-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
9. The following is an Examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 4, 8, 10-12, 17 are allowable over the prior art of record because the prior arts, cited in its entirety, or in combination, do not teach
wherein the credentials enable communications between the data processing system and the PDU to be cryptographically verified (claims 4, 17);
wherein collaboratively enforcing the new power state for the data processing system comprises: providing, by the data processing system and via the multi-function connection, identification information usable to establish an identity of the data processing system to the PDU; and obtaining, by the data processing system and via the multi-function connection, a response from the PDU, the response indicating characteristics of new power that the PDU believes is warranted for the data processing system (claim 8);
wherein enforcing the new power state modifies power consumption by the data processing system (claim 10);
wherein the PDU is adapted to obtain data center level power and supply power source level power via distinct multi-function connections to at least the processing system (claim 11);
wherein the data processing system is connected to the PDU via an out-of-band communication channel that runs through a network module of the data processing system and the out-of-band communication channel services a management controller of the data processing system (claim 12)
Conclusion
10. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-16, 18-20 are rejected. Claims 4, 9-10, 17 are objected.
11. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goldberg et al. (US No. 10,318,722) disclose a power charger authorization for a user equipment via a cryptographic handshake.
Hill et al. (US No. 9,182,795) disclose a power distribution system discovery.
Lewis et al. (US Pub No. 2018/0294610) disclose a power distribution unit for transmitting data over a powerline.
Brey et al. (US Pub No. 2011/0035611) disclose a coordinating in-band and out-of-band power management.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Raymond Phan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3630. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 6:30AM- 3:00PM. The Group Fax No. (571) 273-8300.
Communications via Internet e-mail regarding this application, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used by the applicant and should be addressed to [raymond.phan@uspto.gov].
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 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.
All Internet e-mail communications will be made of record in the application file. PTO employees do not engage in Internet communications where there exists a possibility that sensitive information could be identified or exchanged unless the record includes a properly signed express waiver of the confidentiality requirements of 35 U.S.C. 122. This is more clearly set forth in the Interim Internet Usage Policy published in the Official Gazette of the Patent and Trademark on February 25, 1997 at 1195 OG 89.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see hop://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC 2100 central telephone number is (571) 272-2100.
/RAYMOND N PHAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights