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 .
1 Claims 1-23, 25-28 and 32-33 are presented for examination claims 24, 29-31 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment/Response to Arguments
2. 2.1 The rejection under 112 has been withdrawn since applicant’s amendments and remarks are persuasive and overcome the rejection.
2.2 Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. However, the amendment “determine an effective age of a computing resource of the computing system, the computer resource including at least one of processing circuitry, a memory, or a storage, and determine a life expectancy of the computing resource based on the effective age” was added in response to the Non-final rejection made by the Office. As a result, the previous rejection has been withdrawn, and a new rejection has been made in its place,
Suzuki et al. (US 20140343748 A1) in view of Gross et al. (US 20200241520 A1) further in view of Storino (US20030078741A1).
Applicant argues that the combination of Suzuki and Gross fail to disclose determine an effective age of a computing resource of the computing system, the computer resource including at least one of processing circuitry, a memory, or a storage, and determine a life expectancy of the computing resource based on the effective age.
However, newly found prior art, Storino (US20030078741A1) discloses determine an effective age ([0034], product for which information about effective age is desired) of a computing resource ([0034], a laptop computer, a digital camera, a video camera, an automobile, or a space vehicle, or part thereof) of the computing system (Abstract, Fig. 3B, [0022], [0041]-[0042], The accumulated effective aging of the product is displayed to the owner or prospective customer in various desired formats, such as effective age, current acceleration factor, estimate of effective life used, or estimate of remaining life left in the product. A warning can be sent to the user to indicate that the product's effective life is over or is nearly over), the computer resource ([0035], product 100) including at least one of processing circuitry (processor 111), a memory, or a storage (Non-volatile storage 113); and determine a life expectancy of the computing resource based on the effective age ([0001],[0020], [0042], [0043], estimating the remaining lifetime of the product, using environmental and use condition history of the product, together with wear-out, or aging, acceleration factors applicable to the environmental factors and use conditions. models can be programmed in and executed by processor 111 currently or when they are developed. Processor 111 can compute the actual age of the product, the normalized age of the product, or the current effective rate of aging relative to the actual age of the product. If an expected lifetime is specified by the product manufacturer, based on some specified conditions, processor 111 can compute what fraction of that time has been used, or effectively used, given the effective aging of the product). Thereby the combination of references rendering the instant limitations unpatentable. See the details rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 1-23, 25-28 and 32-33 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.
Claim 1, 10 and 20, the phrase “determine a life expectancy of the computing resource based on the effective age” is unclear and because fails to describe how they are implemented or what it is, without define any algorithm or structure (hardware) been use. Simply making plane statement without defining how it is achieved, and when a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot understand the metes and bounds of the claimed limitation, it triggers indefiniteness. See. MPEP Section 2173. Applicant may respond by explaining why the language is definite or by amending the claim, thus making the record clear regarding the claim boundaries prior to issuance.
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.
4. 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.
4.1 Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-13, 15, 18-23, 25, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 20140343748 A1) in view of Gross et al. (US 20200241520 A1) further in view of Storino (US20030078741A1).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 20, Suzuki discloses an apparatus, method and non-transitory computer readable to manage a computing system (information processing apparatus 10), the apparatus comprising:
at least one memory ([0023], memory 6 and 8),
machine readable instructions ([0020], When a computer system reads and executes the code and/or data stored on the computer-readable storage medium); and
the one or more of the at least one programmable circuitry (processor 5 and 7) to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine-readable instructions ([0022], The processor 5 instructs the temperature sensor 4 to measure the use of the environment temperature of the CPU blade 1 and performs control to store the obtained information on the use environment temperature in the memory 6) to:
adjust at least one of a utilization or a degree of cooling of the computing resource in response to the life expectancy not meeting the reliability threshold, the adjusting of the at least one of the utilization or the degree of cooling to adjust the life expectancy to meet or exceed the reliability threshold (Abstract, [0045]-[0046],[0050], Fig. 5, the remaining lifetime of the cooling target device will also change when a rapid change occurs in the temperature history. If it is determined that the difference between the currently obtained use environment temperature of the CPU blade 1 and the previously obtained use environment temperature of the CPU blade 1 is equal to or less than the threshold (No in S211), the processing proceeds to S201. If it is determined that the difference between the currently obtained use environment temperature of the CPU blade 1 and the previously obtained use environment temperature of the CPU blade 1 is larger than the threshold (Yes in S211), the processing proceeds to S212. Then, processor 7 starts the process of updating the cooling setting temperature).
However, Gross discloses compare the life expectancy to a reliability threshold (Fig. 5, [0036], The system then computes an RUL for the fan based on the historical fan-speed profile and empirical TTF data, which indicates a time-to-failure (TTF) for the same type of fan as a function of fan speed).
Gross and Suzuki are analogous art. They relate to determining the lifetime of the computing system components.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify, estimates a remaining useful life, taught by Gross, incorporated with determining a remaining lifetime, taught by Suzuki, in order to optimize the cooling conditions for a source of heat while ensuring that the guaranteed operation period is fulfilled and therefore it is possible to save power used in cooling.
Gross and Suzuki fail to disclose determine an effective age of a computing resource of the computing system, the computing resource associated with a degree of cooling thereof; compare the remaining life to a reliability threshold; and determine a remaining life of the computing resource.
Storino discloses determine an effective age ([0034], product for which information about effective age is desired) of a computing resource ([0034], for example, can be a laptop computer, a digital camera, a video camera, an automobile, or a space vehicle, or part thereof) of the computing system (Abstract, Fig. 3B, [0022], [0041]-[0042], The accumulated effective aging of the product is displayed to the owner or prospective customer in various desired formats, such as effective age, current acceleration factor, estimate of effective life used, or estimate of remaining life left in the product. A warning can be sent to the user to indicate that the product's effective life is over or is nearly over), the computer resource ([0035], product 100) including at least one of processing circuitry (processor 111), a memory, or a storage (Non-volatile storage 113); and
determine a life expectancy of the computing resource based on the effective age ([0001],[0020], [0042], [0043], estimating the remaining lifetime of the product, using environmental and use condition history of the product, together with wear-out, or aging, acceleration factors applicable to the environmental factors and use conditions. models can be programmed in and executed by processor 111 currently or when they are developed. Processor 111 can compute the actual age of the product, the normalized age of the product, or the current effective rate of aging relative to the actual aging of the product. If an expected lifetime is specified by the product manufacturer, based on some specified conditions, processor 111 can compute what fraction of that time has been actually used, or effectively used, given the effective aging of the product).
Storino, Gross and Suzuki are analogous art. They relate to determining the lifetime of the computing system components.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify, estimating the remaining lifetime of the product and the accumulated effective aging of the product, taught by Storino, incorporated with teaching of Gross and Suzuki, as state above, in order to warn the user to indicate that the product's effective life is over or is nearly over by indicating an effective age of the product.
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 21, the combination of Suzuki and Storino disclose:
Suzuki discloses the computing resource is a first computing resource (Fig. 1, CPU Bland),
the degree of cooling is a first degree of cooling (Abstract, cooling an electronic device, setting a target temperature to cool the electronic device based on a comparison), and
the life expectancy is a first life expectancy (Abstract, remaining lifetime of the electronic device,
wherein the one or more of the at least one programable circuitry is to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine-readable instructions ([0020], When a computer system reads and executes the code and/or data stored on the computer-readable storage medium); to:
compare the first life expectancy to the second life expectancy (Fig. 5, [0005], [0045], [0005] The lifetime of the information processing apparatus is calculated assuming that the information processing apparatus will be continuously used at a certain use environment temperature and the guaranteed operation period is set based on the calculated lifetime); and
cause reduction of one of the first or second degrees of cooling and an increase of the other of the first or second degrees of cooling based on the comparison of the first life expectancy to the second life expectancy (Abstract, Fig. 5, [0090]-[0094], the cooling setting temperature is exceeded in the case where the cooling setting temperature is fixed at 35.degree. C., it is desirable that the rotational speed of the fan be increased to be higher than that when the use environment temperature is 35.degree. C. and that cooling be performed until the use environment temperature is decreased to 35.degree. C. Cooling be performed until the use environment temperature is decreased to 35.degree. C.); and cooled with a second degree of cooling (Fig. 5, the remaining lifetime of the cooling target device will also change when a rapid change occurs in the temperature history. If it is determined that the difference between the currently obtained use environment temperature of the CPU blade 1 and the previously obtained use environment temperature of the CPU blade 1 is equal to or less than the threshold (No in S211), the processing proceeds to S201. If it is determined that the difference between the currently obtained use environment temperature of the CPU blade 1 and the previously obtained use environment temperature of the CPU blade 1 is larger than the threshold (Yes in S211), the processing proceeds to S212. Then, processor 7 starts the process of updating the cooling setting temperature).
Storino discloses the effective age is a first effective age, and determine a second effective age of a second computing resource of the computing system (Abstract, Fig. 3B, [0022], [0041]-[0042], The accumulated effective aging of the product is displayed to the owner or prospective customer in various desired formats, such as effective age, current acceleration factor, estimate of effective life used, or estimate of remaining life left in the product. A warning can be sent to the user to indicate that the product's effective life is over or is nearly over), the computer resource ([0035], product 100) including at least one of processing circuitry (processor 111), a memory, or a storage (Non-volatile storage 113); and
determine a second life expectancy of the second computing resource based on the second effective age ([0001],[0020], [0042], [0043], estimating the remaining lifetime of the product, using environmental and use condition history of the product, together with wear-out, or aging, acceleration factors applicable to the environmental factors and use conditions. Models can be programmed in and executed by processor 111 currently or when they are developed. Processor 111 can compute the actual age of the product, the normalized age of the product, or the current effective rate of aging relative to the actual aging of the product. If an expected lifetime is specified by the product manufacturer, based on some specified conditions, processor 111 can compute what fraction of that time has been actually used, or effectively used, given the effective aging of the product).
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 23, Gross discloses the degree to which the one of the first or second degrees of cooling is reduced is determined based on equating the first life expectancy to the second life expectancy within 10% ([Abstract, [0009], Fig. 5, [0034]-[0036], computes an RUL for the fan based on the historical fan-speed profile and empirical TTF data, which indicates a time-to-failure (TTF) for the same type of fan as a function of fan speed. Finally, when the RUL falls below a threshold, the system generates a notification indicating that the fan needs to be replaced).
Regarding claims 5, 15 and 25, Suzuki discloses one or more of the at least programable circuitry is to execute the instructions to control the utilization of the computing resource (Fig. 1, [0022], [0024], The processor 5 instructs the temperature sensor 4 to measure the use environment temperature of the CPU blade 1 and performs control to store the obtained information on the use environment temperature in the memory 6, Processor 5 is a CPU for example).
Regarding claims 8, 18 and 28, Suzuki discloses one or more of the at least programable circuitry is to execute the instructions to calculate the adjusted degree of cooling ([0004], [0025], [0026], the rotational speed of the cooling fan is controlled so that a heat source that is a target of cooling is at a certain use environment temperature. FIG. 2, the rotational speed of the cooling fan is dependent on the use environment temperature of the device that is the target of cooling. The cooling fan has a function of controlling its rotational speed so that the rotational speed automatically increases if the use environment temperature increases. Thus, it is possible to avoid a situation in which the use environment temperature exceeds the cooling setting temperature).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Suzuki discloses one or more of the at least programable circuitry is to execute the instructions to determine the life expectancy based on a predicted usage of the computing resource (Abstract, [0007], [0032],[0046], calculating a remaining lifetime of the electronic device by using a prediction model based on the temperature history; determining a remaining lifetime of the electronic device by using a prediction model based on the temperature history).
Regarding claims 12 and 22, Suzuki discloses cause one or more of the at least programable circuitry to: calculate a degree to which the one of the first or second degrees of cooling is reduced ([0007], [0044], the processor 7 reads out information on the latest use environment temperature of the CPU blade 1 from the memory 8. Then, the processor 7 determines whether the rotational speed of the cooling fan during operation is appropriate for the read-out use environment temperature. Upon receiving the signal from the processor 7, the cooling device 2 decreases the rotational speed of the cooling fan to the rotational speed that corresponds to the use environment temperature in accordance with the profile of the cooling fan rotational speed corresponding to the use environment temperature exemplified in FIG. 2).
4.2 Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Gross further in view of Storino and furthermore in view of Brunschwiler (US 20100241278 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the combination of Storino, Suzuki and Gross disclose the limitation of claims 1, 10 and 20, but fail to disclose the limitations of claims 4 and 14. However, Brunschwiler discloses the one or more of the at least one programmable circuitry is to execute the instructions to adjust the degree of cooling by controlling at least one valve in a fluid cooling system (Abstract, [0011], [0028], [0032], [0039], The processor chip 34 generates heat during operation that needs to be dissipated. It is desirable to maintain the processor chip 34 at a temperature between approximately 65.degree. C.-85.degree. C.; and the direct variable flow impingement of coolant on the processor chip 34 reduces the thermal gradient between different locations on the chip to a level below 3.degree. C. valve allows for the dynamic changing of the flow rates of coolant to the processor chip 34).
Storino, Brunschwiler, Gross and Suzuki are analogous art. They relate to determining the lifetime of the computing system components.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify a cold plate that allows direct liquid cooling of the processor, taught by Brunschwiler, incorporated with teaching of Storino, Gross and Suzuki, as state above, in order to provide a cooling system that maximizes the coolant output temperature while maintaining a desired processor chip temperature.
4.3 Claim(s) 6-7, 16-17 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Gross further in view of Storino and furthermore in view of Krishnamurthy (US 20120054771 A1).
Regarding claims 6-7, 16-17 and 27, the combination of Storino, Suzuki and Gross disclose the limitation of claims 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25, but fail to disclose the limitations of claims 6-7, 16-17 and 26-27. However, Krishnamurthy discloses the limitations of claims 6, 16 and 26, as follow:
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Krishnamurthy discloses the one or more of the at least one programmable circuitry is to execute the instructions to control the utilization based on at least one of a service level agreement (SLA) or a performance requirement (Abstract, [0005], [0006], [0029], an SLA manager 124, retrieving a set of high-throughput computing service level agreements (SLAs). The set of high-throughput computing SLAs are associated with a hybrid processing system. the set of SLAs is associated with a hybrid processing system including a server system and a set of accelerator systems).
Regarding claims 7, 17 and 27, Krishnamurthy discloses the processor circuitry is to execute the instructions to control the utilization by rescheduling or redistributing workloads for execution by the computing resource (Fig. 1, Abstract, [0004], [0067], The workload manager dynamically reschedules, in response to the determining; data-parallel workload tasks is dynamically rescheduled on a second one of the server systems and the set of accelerator systems).
Storino, Krishnamurthy, Gross and Suzuki are analogous art. They relate to determining the lifetime of the computing system components.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify manage workloads in a high-throughput computing environment, taught by Krishnamurthy, incorporated with teaching of Storin, Gross and Suzuki, as state above, in order to provide high-throughput computing in a hybrid computing environment by redistributing workloads based on SLA.
4.4 Claim(s) 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Gross further in view of Storino and furthermore in view of Gustlin (US20210191383A1).
Regarding claims 32-33, the combination of Storino, Suzuki and Gross disclose the limitation of claims 1 and 2, but fail to disclose the limitations of 32-33. However, Gustlin discloses the limitations of claims 32-33, as follows:
Regarding claim 32, Gustlin discloses the degree to which the one of the first or second degrees of cooling is reduced is determined based on reducing one of the first or second life expectancies, and increasing the other of the first or second life expectancies (Fig. 2-5, [0006]-[0009], cooling a hardware device by determining an expected life of the device using historical temperature measurements and controlling (reducing and increasing as needed) cooling elements that cool a hardware device).
Regarding claim 33, Gustlin discloses the first and second degrees of cooling are adjusted to equate the first and second life expectancies (Abstract, traditional fan and shaper control along with aggregated knowledge of the temperature history of a hardware device to optimally manage the temperature of the hardware device to preserve its expected life while also providing the lower power, best performing solution possible).
Gustlin, Storino, Gross and Suzuki are analogous art. They relate to determining the lifetime of the computing system components.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify a cooling application manages the expected life, taught by Gustlin, incorporated with teaching of Storin, Gross and Suzuki, as state above, in order to optimally manage the temperature of the hardware device to preserve its expected life while also providing the lower power, best performing solution possible.
Citation Pertinent prior art
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li (US20120143564A1) discloses a method and system for accurately predicting the remaining useful life of devices and device components based on rigorous statistical analysis data to reduce service costs by implementing condition-based maintenance is disclosed.
Ringering (US20090089033A1) discloses determined, and the life expectancy is determined based on the characteristic values and on the characteristic data for the machine’s component.
Griffith (US 20160277260 A1) discloses the terms “age” and “life expectancy” are commonly used in the art, what those terms really describe is the likelihood of failure within a given time period. A computer system is monitored for conditions bearing on the effective age of various hardware components of the system.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for allthat it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed wereinstead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1 009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kidest Worku whose telephone number is 571-272-3737. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am to 5pm, ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ali Mohammad can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application information Retrieval IPAIRI system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PMR 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 PAG system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217- 9197.
/KIDEST WORKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights