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 Non-Final Office Action is in reply to 05/15/2025. Claimed priority is granted from foreign Application NumberIN202321061950, field on 09/14/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/26/2025 and 10/28/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the original application filed on 05/15/2015. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grosso, US 2016/0080242 A1, in view of Gross US 2018/0058976 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Grosso teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Grosso discloses: a method for generating standardized power usage data, comprising:
selecting an apparatus for measurement within a measuring environment (Grosso, 0036, telecommunications equipment 103 under test; 0048, routers, switches, endpoints, servers, gateways etc. identifies during test);
generating a traffic pattern with a predetermined composition (Grosso, 0039; generation/storage of plural test-traffic load shapes; 0067 VBR traffic using the IMIX; see packet size in proportion from Table 1);
operating the apparatus by processing the traffic pattern (Grosso, 0036, states communications equipment 103 handles a data traffic load; 0069 sending packets to the equipment);
normalizing one or more electrical units for an electrical measurement process (Grosso, 0065, power/consumption/performance; 0085, power-consumption reduction between mode differences);
conducting the electrical measurement process on the apparatus (Grosso, 0042, measuring power-consumption of equipment under test; see also 0083, traffic modes coordinating with traffic load);
in response to determining that the predetermined composition has not been tested, generating a new traffic pattern with a new predetermined composition (Grosso, 0069-0070, altering traffic rate and rerunning the test; 0089, teachable, repeatable traffic patterns; 0095-0096 teaches testing/sampling at successive varying traffic conditions);
generating a standardized power usage chart based on a plurality of electrical measurements (Grosso, 0043-0044, traffic/performance and energy-consumption measurements); and generating power usage data based on the electrical measurement process (Grosso, 0041, 0044, 0065, and 0083-0085, measurement and recording of power-consumption data correlated with traffic and power mode).
However, Grosso appears not to disclose the details of “establishing a predetermined temperature within the measuring environment”). This feature is well known in the art as evidence by Gross. In the same field of invention, Gross teaches computing “work-per-watt” as IOPS/watt and an IOPS/watt relationship across environmental conditions (See Gross, 0009, 0041 and 044). This limitation is also subject to additional and separate § 112(b) rejection discussed below because the claim does not clearly define “electrical units” or “normalizing.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grosso’s network-equipment traffic/power test method to perform the measurement under the controlled ambient temperatures taught by Gross. Grosso seeks accurate characterization of power consumption under representative traffic conditions, while Gross expressly teaches that energy-efficiency measurements depend upon environmental conditions and therefore performs workload/power measurements at systematically controlled temperatures. Gross states that energy efficiency characterization should account for thermal environmental conditions (0032), establishing a multivariate IOPS/watt relationship including ambient temperature (0035), and systematically varies environmental parameters to span desired operating permutations (0037, 0048-0049). The combination would predictably provide more complete and reproductible poer characterization of Grosso’s network equipment. By this rationale, claim 1 is rejected.
Likewise regarding claims 2-20, the combination Grosso-Gross teaches:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the electrical measurement process is conducted two or more times (Grosso, 0058, 0083-0086, and 0070).
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the measuring environment is established to a unique predetermined temperature for each of the two or more electrical measurement processes (Gross, 0009, 0041, and 0044; 0048).
4. The method of claim 2, wherein the traffic pattern is generated with a unique composition for each of the two or more electrical measurement processes (Grosso, 0039, 0067, 0087-0090, and 0070).
5. The method of claim 3, wherein the traffic pattern is generated with a unique composition for each of the two or more electrical measurement processes (Gross, 0044, 0048-0049; and Grosso 0039, 0067, and 0087-0090).
6. The method of claim 3, wherein at least one of the unique predetermined temperatures is a room temperature (Gross teaches no room temperature, but ambient temperature as s test variable; 0034, 0035, 0041 and 0041; see also Gross, 0047).
7. The method of claim 4, wherein the measuring environment is established to a unique predetermined temperature for each of the two or more electrical measurement processes (Groso, 0039, 0067, and 0087-0090; and Gross, 0041, 0044 and 0048).
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the generation of the power usage data is based on the two or more electrical measurement processes (Grosso, 0043-0044; see also Gross 0049).
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is configured to utilize electricity (Grosso, 0041, 0051, 0083-0085).
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is a network device (Grosso, 0048).
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is a component configured for use within a network device (Grosso, 0042 and 0049).
12. The method of claim1, wherein the electrical units are comprised of at [east one of: a power load vs a power factor, power efficiency, or an I-share curve (Grosso, 0002 and 0065; see Gross 0013 and 0033).
13. The method of claim 1, wherein the traffic pattern is configured to mimic typical usage associated with the apparatus (Grosso, 0067 and 0093).
14. A device comprising: a processor; memory communicatively coupled to the processor; a plurality of elements; and a sustainability logic configured to: establish a predetermined temperature within a measuring environment (Gross, 0009, 0042 and 0044); generate a traffic pattern with a predetermined composition (Grosso, 0039, 0067, and 0087-0089); operate an apparatus by directing the apparatus to process the traffic pattern (Grosso, 0036 and 0069); normalize one or more electrical units for an electrical measurement process (Grosso, 0065, 0085, 0033, 0035, 0041, 0083-0086); conduct the electrical measurement process on the apparatus (Grosso, 0041, 0083-0086); generating a standardized power usage chart based on a plurality of electrical measurements (Grosso, 0043-0044, 0158); determining one or more network devices to place in a lower-power state based on the generated power usage chart (Grosso, 0046-0047, 0104, 0138-0143, 0151-0152); and generate power usage data based on the electrical measurement process (Grosso, 0041, 0044 and 0083-0085). The same motivation and reason to combine used for the rejection of claim 1 is also valid for this claim. By this rationale, claim 14 is rejected
15. The device of claim 14, wherein the conducting of the electrical measurement process on the apparatus while processing the one or more traffic patterns (Grosso, 0083 and 0095-0098; see also Gross 0007, 0043-0046).
16. The device of claim 15, wherein the processing of the one or more traffic patterns is configured to occur via one or more communication ports (Grosso, 0069 and 0137).
17. The device of claim 14, wherein conducting the electrical measurement process is repeated at a plurality of unique combinations of predetermined temperatures and predetermined compositions (Gross, 0048 and 0049; see also Grosso, 0087-0090, 9939 and 0067).
18. The device of claim 17, wherein the generating of the power usage data is based on the repeated electrical measurement processes (Grosso, 0044 and Gross 0049).
19. The device of claim 18, wherein the sustainability logic is further configured to execute at least one network management decision based on the generated power usage data (Grosso, par. 0046, 0047, 0151-0152, and 0104).
20. A device comprising: a processor; memory communicatively coupled to the processor; a plurality of elements; and a sustainability logic configured to: direct a measuring environment to establish a predetermined temperature(Gross, 0009, 0042 and 0044); provide power to an apparatus within the measuring environment (Grosso, 0039, 0067, and 0087-0089);; establish a connection to the apparatus via one or more communication ports (Grosso, 0036 and 0069); transmit a generated traffic pattern over the one or more communication ports (Grosso, 0036 and 0069); normalize one or more electrical units for an electrical measurement process (Grosso, 0065, 0085, 0033, 0035, 0041, 0083-0086); conduct the electrical measurement process on the apparatus (Grosso, 0041, 0083-0086); generate a standardized power usage chart based on a plurality of electrical measurements (Grosso, 0043-0044, 0158); determine one or more network devices to shut down or put in a lower- power state based on the generated standardized power usage chart (Grosso, 0046-0047, 0104, 0138-0143, 0151-0152); and generate power usage data based on the electrical measurement process (Grosso, 0041, 0044 and 0083-0085). The same motivation and reason to combine used for the rejection of claim 1 is also valid for this claim. By this rationale, claim 20 is rejected
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 14, and 20 recite:” normalizing one or more electrical units for an electrical measurement process.”
The claims do not define with reasonable certainty what constitutes the recited “electrical units” or what operation constitutes “normalizing: those units. Claims 12 compounds the uncertainty by identifying as: electrical units” such disparate items as “a power load vs a power factor” “power efficiency,” and “an I-share curve,” it is therefore unclear whether normalizing applies to physical measurement units, measured numerical values, ratios, curves, efficiency metrics, or other data.
This in definitiveness is why the § 103 rejection above expressly states the BRI used for examination rather than asserting that either Grosso or Gross uses applicant’s terminology literally.
Claim 1 is additionally indefinite because, after generating a traffic pattern having the predetermined composition, processing that traffic pattern, and conducting the electrical measurement process, it recites determining that “the predetermined composition had not been tested.” It is unclear whether applicant means the composition already processed, another untested composition, or whether all candidate compositions have been tested.
Claims 15 is additionally indefinite because “
“Wherein the conducting of the electrical measurement process on the apparatus while processing the one or more traffic patterns” is incomplete clause that fails to define the claimed relationship.
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,191 in view of Grosso. The patent in a claim-to-claim matching corresponds to the teaching of the patent application. The added limitations of the application are supported by Grosso’s specific paragraphs listed below rather than general assertions:
Addition/related traffic testing: Grosso 0069-0070, 0087-0090, and 0096-0096;
Power characterization/processed output: Grosso 0067, and 0093-0094;
Network power-management decision: Grosso 0046-0047, 0104, 0151-0152;
Sleep/lower-power/shutdown states: Grosso 0138-0143.
Accordingly, where present claims 1, 14 and 20 add, respectively, iterative standardized characterization and lover-power/shutdown decisions beyond corresponding claims of Patent 12,526,191, Grosso provides evidence that those differences were known network-power testing and management techniques rather than patentably distinct subject matter.
The strongest factual mappings are claims 2-5, 7-11, 13-20, because the attached references expressly show the relevant features. Claim 6 should be framed as an obvious selection of ambient temperature, not an express “room temperature” disclosure.
The one limitation I would not characterize as expressly taught is “normalizing one or more electrical units.” The evidence is Grosso’s comparative/relative power calculations (0065, 0086) and Gross’s IOPS/watt normalization-type efficiency metric (0033, 0035). Because the claim itself is indefinite as to what is being normalized, the clean examiner treatment is to state the reasonable interpretation used for prior-art examination while maintaining the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection. This avoids overstating the two references and makes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection more defensible.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jude Jean-Gilles whose telephone number is 571-272-3914. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, from 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached on 571-272-4170. 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.
/JUDE JEAN GILLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
October 7, 2026
