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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 timewise 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/895,760 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use similar limitations to produce the same end result of foregoing execution of the operation when the energy utilization-based operation restriction enforcement data indicates execution of the operation is disallowed based on execution of the operation not adhering to the operation requirement data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify or omit the additional claim elements of App. No. 18/895,760 to arrive at the limitations of claims 1-20 of the instant application because one would realize that the remaining elements would perform the same functions as before.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 12-14, & 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Gatson et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0370843 A1).
In respect to Claim 1, Gatson teaches:
a data storage system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing operational instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations that include: determining power usage policy data for the data storage system; (Gatson teaches [Abstract] a power policy in the data system.)
generating operation requirement data based on the power usage policy data; (Gatson [0034])
determining an operation for execution; (Gatson [0022])
performing an energy utilization-based operation limitation enforcement function upon energy utilization-based operation restriction enforcement input data to generate energy utilization-based operation restriction enforcement data for the operation based on applying the operation requirement data; (Gatson [0131])
executing the operation when the energy utilization-based operation restriction enforcement data indicates execution of the operation is allowed based on execution of the operation adhering to the operation requirement data; and foregoing execution of the operation when the energy utilization-based operation restriction enforcement data indicates execution of the operation is disallowed based on execution of the operation not adhering to the operation requirement data (Gatson teaches [0131] restrictions on power usage based on usage trends.)
As per Claim 2, Gatson teaches:
wherein the operations further include: receiving an operation request from a requesting entity indicating the operation, wherein determining the operation for execution is based on receiving the operation request; (Gatson teaches [0042] teaches requesting of data objects.)
sending operation execution result data to the requesting entity in response to executing the operation when the energy utilization-based operation restriction enforcement data indicates execution of the operation is allowed; and sending an operation execution denied notification to the requesting entity in response to executing the operation when the energy utilization-based operation restriction enforcement data indicates execution of the operation is disallowed (Gatson teaches [0131] restrictions on power usage based on usage trends.)
As per Claim 3, Gatson teaches:
wherein the power usage policy data includes peak power threshold data that includes a peak power threshold magnitude for the data storage system, and wherein one of: the energy utilization-based operation restriction enforcement data indicates execution of the operation is disallowed based on determining execution of the operation would render exceeding of the peak power threshold magnitude; or the energy utilization-based operation restriction enforcement data indicates execution of the operation is allowed based on determining execution of the operation would not render exceeding of the peak power threshold magnitude (Gatson teaches [0082] policy based on thresholds.)
As per Claim 4, Gatson teaches:
wherein the peak power threshold data indicates a plurality of different peak power thresholds for a plurality of different time frames within a fixed cyclical time window, wherein the operation is executed over a temporal period that spans multiple ones of the plurality of different time frames, and wherein one of: the energy utilization-based operation restriction enforcement data indicates execution of the operation is allowed based on determining execution of the operation would render no peak power threshold magnitude for any of the multiple ones of the plurality of different time frames being exceeded during temporal period; or the energy utilization-based operation restriction enforcement data indicates execution of the operation is disallowed based on determining execution of the operation would render no peak power threshold magnitude for at least one of the multiple ones of the plurality of different time frames being exceeded during temporal period; (Gatson teaches [0082] policy based on thresholds.)
wherein the operations further include generating the peak power threshold data based on selecting the plurality of different peak power thresholds for a plurality of different time frames based on power pricing data indicating different pricing of power usage by the data storage system during different ones of the a plurality of different time frames (Gatson teaches [0082] policy based on thresholds.)
As per Claim 5, Gatson teaches:
wherein the operation requirement data includes at least one of: peak-power-based operation requirement data generated based on peak power threshold data of the power usage policy data; or overall energy consumption-based operation requirement data generated based on energy consumption threshold data of the power usage policy data (Gatson teaches [0082] policy based on thresholds.)
As per Claim 12, Gatson teaches:
wherein the operations further include generating a plurality of different operation requirement data for a plurality of different time frames based on the power usage policy data, wherein the operation is executed over a temporal period that spans multiple ones of the plurality of different time frames, wherein performing the energy utilization-based operation limitation enforcement function is based on determining whether execution of the operation is allowed based on adherence to each total energy consumption-based aggregate operation requirement data for each of the multiple ones of the plurality of different time frames (Gatson teaches [0047] restriction based upon time based data.)
As per Claim 13, Gatson teaches:
wherein the operations further include at least one of: generating a plurality of different operation requirement data for at least one of: a plurality of different user entities, a plurality of different operation types, or a plurality of different operation priorities, wherein one of the plurality of different operation requirement data is applied to generate the energy utilization-based operation restriction enforcement data for the operation based on at least one of: a user entity requesting the operation, an operation type of the operation, or an operation priority of the operation; (Gatson [0025])
or performing an energy utilization estimation function upon operation parameter data for the operation to generate corresponding energy utilization estimate data for the operation, wherein the energy utilization-based operation restriction enforcement input data includes the energy utilization estimate data generated for the operation (Gatson [Abstract])
As per Claim 14, Gatson teaches:
wherein the energy utilization-based operation restriction enforcement input data for the operation that includes at least one of: an operation type of the operation; operation parameter data for the operation; projected temporal power usage data for the data storage system; or current power meter measurement data for the data storage system (Gatson [0025])
As per Claim 16, Gatson teaches:
wherein the data storage system implements a data lakehouse platform storing a plurality of records of at least one table across a plurality of files in accordance with an open table format (Gatson teaches [0051, 0055, 0061] storage of records and files in table format.)
As per Claim 17, Gatson teaches:
wherein executing the operation includes at least one of: reading at least one of the plurality of records from at least one of the plurality of files in accordance with the energy utilization-based operation scheduling data; or writing at least one of the plurality of files to include a new set of records of the plurality of records of the at least one table in accordance with the energy utilization-based operation scheduling data (Gatson teaches [0051, 0055, 0061] storage of records and files in table format.)
As per Claim 18, Gatson teaches:
wherein the data lakehouse platform further stores a set of table metadata each corresponding to one of a plurality of tables that includes the at least one table, and wherein executing the operation includes at least one of: reading at least one table metadata of the set of table metadata in conjunction with performing the operation for at least one corresponding table of the plurality of tables in accordance with the energy utilization-based operation scheduling data; or generating at least one table metadata of the set of table metadata in conjunction with performing the operation for at least one corresponding table of the plurality of tables in accordance with the energy utilization-based operation scheduling data (Gatson teaches [0051, 0055, 0061] storage of records and files in table format.)
Claim 19 is the method claim corresponding to system claim 1, therefore is rejected for the same reasons noted above.
Claim 20 is the media claim corresponding to system claim 1, therefore is rejected for the same reasons noted above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11 & 15 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
/JOSHUA BULLOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153 January 10, 2026