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 1-28 are presented for examination and claims 29-31 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
The term “associated with” in claims 1, 10 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “associated with” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of “associated with” are unclear.
The term “substantially” in claims 3, 13 and 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the term “substantially” are unclear.
As per claim 2-9, 11-19 and 21-28, these claims are at least rejected for their dependencies, directly or indirectly, on the rejected claims1, 10 and 20. They are therefore rejected as set forth above.
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.
3. 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.
3.1 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).
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
processor 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 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 the degree of cooling of the computing resource in response to the remaining life not meeting the reliability threshold to adjust the remaining life 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, the processor 7 starts the process of updating the cooling setting temperature).
Suzuki fails 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.
However, Gross discloses determine an effective age of a computing resource of the computing system ([0027], [0026] A number of aging mechanisms for cooling fans have been identified, detect the aging depends on internal server parameters, such as compute loads and memory loads and geometric particularities of specific server configuration. All of these aging mechanisms can cause elevated vibration levels in the servers that contain the cooling fans, the aging rate of a cooling fan depends on a fan-speed profile during operation of the cooling fan), the computing resource associated with a degree of cooling thereof ([0027], ([0025], [0026] Aging cooling fans in computer servers is running at higher speeds for longer periods of time, which further accelerates incipient degradation mechanism),
determine a remaining life of the computing resource (Abstract, [0005], [0036], estimates a remaining useful life (RUL) for a cooling fan based on a wear-out index analysis to facilitate proactive cooling fan replacement), and
compare the remaining life 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.
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 21, the combination of Suzuki and Gross 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 remaining life is a first remaining life (Abstract, remaining lifetime of the electronic device,
wherein the processor 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:
determine a second remaining life of the second computing resource (Abstract, determining a remaining lifetime of the electronic device by using a prediction model based on the temperature history);
compare the first remaining life to the second remaining life (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 at least 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 remaining life to the second remaining life (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.).
Gross discloses the effective age is a first effective age, and determine a second effective age of a second computing resource of the computing system, the second computing resource associated with a second degree of cooling ([0027], [0026] A number of aging mechanisms for cooling fans have been identified, detect the aging depends on internal server parameters, such as compute loads and memory loads and geometric particularities of specific server configuration. All of these aging mechanisms can cause elevated vibration levels in the servers that contain the cooling fans, the aging rate of a cooling fan depends on a fan-speed profile during operation of the cooling fan), the computing resource associated with a degree of cooling thereof ([0027], ([0025], [0026] Aging cooling fans in computer servers is running at higher speeds for longer periods of time, which further accelerates incipient degradation mechanism).
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 23, Gross discloses the degree to which the at least one of the first or second degrees of cooling is reduced is determined based on substantially equating the first remaining life to the second remaining life ([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 processor 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. The processor 5 is a CPU for example).
Regarding claims 8, 18 and 28, Suzuki discloses the processor 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 the processor circuitry is to execute the instructions to determine the remaining life based on 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 the processor circuitry to: calculate a degree to which the at least 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).
3.2 Claim(s) 4, 14 and 24 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) in view of Brunschwiler (US 20100241278 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 14 and 24, the combination of Suzuki and Gross disclose the limitation of claims 1, 10 and 20, but fail to disclose the limitations of claims 4, 14 and 24. However, Brunschwiler discloses the processor 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).
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 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.
3.3 Claim(s) 6-7, 16-17 and 26-27, 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) in view of Krishnamurthy (US 20120054771 A1).
Regarding claims 6-7, 16-17 and 26-27, the combination of 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, 16 and 26, Krishnamurthy discloses the processor 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).
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 Gross and Suzuki, as state above, in order to provide high-throughput computing in a hybrid computing environment by redistributing workloads based on SLA.
Citation Pertinent prior art
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ho et al. (US20200319686A1) discloses the thermal management system controlled in this way provides optimal thermal management for the computing device. Optimal thermal management may provide an increase in system performance and an increase in computing device life expectancy.
Hoang ( US20140181595A1) discloses estimate lifespan of a solid-state drive (SSD). Real environmental information from an environmental processor is received. The real environmental information corresponds to an environment of a solid-state drive (SSD). The lifespan of the SSD is estimated using the real environmental information and an internal data usage model. The estimated lifespan is made available for retrieval.
Wood et al. (US20110246093A1) discloses a system for predicting a remaining useful life (RUL) for a component in a set of components within a computer system. The system starts by collecting values of at least one degradation-related parameter associated with the operation of a monitored component within the computer system.
Bhatia et al. (US20180373300A1) disclose predictive monitoring of computer cooling systems includes generating, at a computer system, a model representative of at least a relationship between a rotational speed of one or more fans configured to cool computing component; and generates a predictive failure alert when the data representative of the rotational speed indicates that the rotational speed is outside of the first effective range for a particular value of the duty cycle.
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
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed Kidest Worku whose telephone number is 571-272-3737. 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