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 .
Claims 1-25 are presented for Examination.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 19, 25 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
1. Claim 1, line 10 recites “ receiving a query regarding the power policy for the first” the terminologies are unclear and the use of this phrase which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether it is the first device or not.
2. Claims 1, 19, line 11, recites “determining responses to the query at the first device and at a second device” , the terminologies are unclear and the use of this phrase which renders the claim indefinite because:
a) Claim 1 only recites “receiving a query regarding the power policy for the first” and it is not clear whether the query is provided to the first device and a second device to determine responses to the query at the first device and at a second device.
b) Claim 19 recites “ receiving a query regarding the event from the management entity and it is not clear whether the query is provided to the first device and a second device to determine responses to the query at the first device and at a second device.
The dependent claims 2-18 are rejected on the same basis.
3. Claim 25 recites the limitations:
a) " determine a response to the query at the first device based on the relationship between the power consumption and the another performance variable, wherein the responses include a first projection of the power consumption at a first time based on applying the power policy parameter,” the terminologies are unclear and the use of this phrase which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether it is “the response “ or any other responses .
b) “receive the query regarding the power policy for the first device from the management entity; determine a response to the query at the second device”; the terminologies are unclear and the use of this phrase which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether it is “receive the query regarding the power policy for the first device or a second device .
The dependent claims 20-24 are rejected on the same basis.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time wise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Comparisons of claims are shown in the following table:
Instant Application 18/971,204
Patent 12181994
A method comprising:
creating a power policy for a first device, wherein the power policy for the first device indicates a relationship between power consumption by the first device and another performance variable of the first device based at least in part on a performance indicator related to the power consumption;
determining a power policy parameter based on the relationship between the power consumption and the another performance variable reflected by the performance indicator;
applying the power policy parameter to the first device;
receiving a query regarding the power policy for the first;
determining responses to the query at the first device and at a second device, wherein the responses are based on the relationship between the power consumption and the another performance variable, and wherein the responses include a first projection of the power consumption at a first time based on applying the power policy parameter, a second projection of the power consumption at a second time after the first time based on applying the power policy parameter, a first projection of the another performance variable at the first time based on applying the power policy parameter, and a second projection of the another performance variable at the second time;
creating an altered power policy based on a first input after the responses; and
enforcing the altered power policy on the first device, including managing a component of the first device and an activity of the first device to affect the power consumption.
A method, comprising:
creating a power policy for a first device, wherein the power policy for the first device indicates a relationship between power consumption by the first device and another performance variable of the first device based at least in part on a performance indicator related to the power consumption, and wherein the another performance variable includes a response time of the first device or a throughput of the first device;
determining a power policy parameter based at least in part on the relationship between the power consumption and the another performance variable reflected by the performance indicator; applying the power policy parameter to the first device; receiving a query regarding the power policy for the first device from a user external to the first device, wherein a management entity provides the query to the first device and to a second device;
determining responses to the query at the first device and at the second device, wherein the responses are based at least in part on the relationship between the power consumption and the another performance variable, and wherein the responses include a first projection of the power consumption at a first time based on applying the power policy parameter, a second projection of the power consumption at a second time after the first time based on applying the power policy parameter, a first projection of the another performance variable at the first time based on applying the power policy parameter, and a second projection of the another performance variable at the second time; and
providing the responses to the query to the user, wherein the responses include an option to modify the power policy for the first device;
creating an altered power policy based on input from the user after the responses; and
enforcing the altered power policy on the first device, including managing a component of the first device and an activity of the first device to affect the power consumption.
Claims 1,19, 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting is being unpatentable over respective claims 1, 9, 14 of Patent 12181994. Instant application’s broader scope covers much of the claimed subject matter found in the Patent. A person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the invention defined in the claims at issue would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in the claims of the Patent.
The limitations of dependent claims 2,3,5,6, 7, 8,18 of the instant application are inclusive of claim 1 in the patent 12181994.
The limitations of dependent claims 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 of the instant application are similar to the respective claims 2,3, 6, 8,21, 23,24, 26, 25 in the patent 12181994.
The limitations of dependent claims 20, 21 of the instant application are inclusive of claim 9 in the patent 12181994.
The limitations of dependent claims 22, 23, 24 of the instant application are similar to the respective claims 11, 25, 31 in the patent 12181994.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, 9, 25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and overcoming the Double Patenting Rejection set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Flautner et al., U.S Patent Application Publication 2004/0139302, teaches selection of a performance level to be used by a data processing system capable of operating at a plurality of different performance levels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GAYATHRI SAMPATH whose telephone number is (571)272-5489. The examiner can normally be reached on 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 on 5712701640. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 http://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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GAYATHRI SAMPATH/ Examiner, Art Unit 2176
/MOHAMMED H REHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights