DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 6 August 2026. Claims 1, 11, and 15 have been amended. Claims 7, 8, 14, and 19 were previously cancelled. Claims 21-23 have been newly added. Claims 1-6, 9-13, 15-18, and 20-23 remain pending in this application.
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 .
Applicant’s-Initiated Interview – Clarification of the Record
In regards to the Applicant’s statement, “Applicant has incorporated the amendments discussed during the interview into the claims presented herein, and has also incorporated the suggested corrections to the dependent claims 21-23 agreed upon by the Examiner to overcome the 101 rejections for those claims.” (see Remarks, pg. 7, paragraph 2), the examiner does not recall amendments to claims 21 and 22 as set forth in the Amendment After Non-Final Rejection filed on 6 August 2026 being explicitly discussed during the interview. The applicant’s representative and examiner broadly discussed the outstanding issues in proposed claims 21 and 22 and potential amendments to obviate those issues. In addition, the examiner indicated during the interview (21 July 2026) only proposed claim 23 overcame the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 20 April 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 7-12, filed 6 August 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-6, 9-13, 15-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s argument,
At Step 2A Prong One, the claims do not recite a mental process because the claimed limitations cannot practically be performed in the human mind. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states that "[c]laims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind." A human cannot mentally "modify a value of the one or more processor temperature limits stored in the processor" because this limitation recites actual modification of stored values within processor hardware. This is not an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that could be performed mentally or with pen and paper. (see Remarks, 8, paragraph 2)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner respectfully recognizes the applicant has not addressed the rejection of claim 1 as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 20 April 2026. The examiner notes the limitation of “in response to the detecting of the abnormal operation of the fan, reduce one or more protection temperatures of the processor, wherein the one or more protection temperatures comprise one or more processor temperature limits …, and wherein reducing the one or more protection temperatures comprises modifying a value of the one or more processor temperature limits” was indicated as falling within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas not that of the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Hence, the applicant’s argument is not applicable and rendered moot.
In regards to the applicant’s argument,
Rather, it is a specific technical operation performed on processor hardware. The modification of processor temperature protection limits changes the physical operating conditions under which the processor throttles performance or shuts down, which cannot be performed mentally. Moreover, the claims as amended now recite the processor temperature limits to be "maintained by the system management unit," meaning the SMU itself maintains and modifies these values as part of its internal thermal protection logic. This is a hardware-level operation performed by the SMU within the processor, not a human inputting data into a computer. (see Remarks, pg. 8, paragraph 2)
The Examiner has alleged that "reduce one or more protection temperatures of the processor" constitutes "managing personal behavior" under the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping. Applicant respectfully submits this characterization is incorrect. Modifying stored processor temperature limits is not managing personal behavior; it is a technical operation performed on processor hardware. A human cannot "manage" processor temperature limits stored in a processor by mental activity or by following instructions. The claimed limitation recites modifying actual values stored in processor hardware, which is fundamentally different from managing human behavior or interactions. (see Remarks, pg. 9, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) recites:
II. CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:
• fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
• commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and
• managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
The term "certain" qualifies the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as a reminder of several important points. First, not all methods of organizing human activity are abstract ideas (e.g., "a defined set of steps for combining particular ingredients to create a drug formulation" is not a certain "method of organizing human activity"), In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160-61, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Second, this grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people, and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(3). Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) recites:
C. A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, Examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, Examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and Applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are "human cognitive actions" that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as "directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging." 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01.
2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that "with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper". 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
MPEP 2106.05(f) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The examiner recognizes the previously presented claim limitation “a system management unit” was addressed in Step 2A, prong two and Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility requirement in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 20 April 2026. The previously presented claim limitation “a system management unit” and newly presented claim limitation of “maintained by the system management” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that the “system management unit” represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). In particular, the examiner maintains the limitation of “a system management unit” is directed to using generic “a system management unit” as a tool in data modification (i.e. one or more processor temperature limits). Hence, the additional elements of “a system management unit” and “maintained by the system management” do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea; and the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In addition, the examiner recognizes the applicant has set forth a broad and conclusionary statement with respect to the claims are directed to “A human cannot "manage" processor temperature limits stored in a processor by mental activity or by following instructions. The claimed limitation recites modifying actual values stored in processor hardware, which is fundamentally different from managing human behavior or interactions.” without specifically identifying why a human per an activity (e.g. an input to a computer) could not modify (e.g. update) information stored on a processor in response to known information (i.e. detection of an abnormal operation of a fan). Hence, the argument is found unpersuasive.
Further, for the sake of argument, the examiner emphasizes the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid. Thus, the use of a processor is a mere tool to perform the mental concept; hence the Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s argument,
Furthermore, the claimed "processor temperature limits stored in the processor" are not mere data points; they are operational parameters that govern the physical behavior of the processor hardware. Modifying these stored limits directly controls when the processor throttles performance or shuts down. The claimed modification of processor temperature limits is therefore tied to processor operation, not abstract data processing. This further confirms that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. (see Remarks, pg. 9, paragraph 2)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner notes the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “… controls when the processor throttles performance or shuts down”) are not recited in rejected claims 1, 11, and 15. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Hence, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments,
The claims provide an improvement to processor technology. The specification explains that reducing protection temperatures "causes the processor to reduce computational actions at a lower temperature than the throttling temperature stored for the processor" which "allows the processor to compensate, to a degree, for reduced cooling provided by an abnormally operating fan by generating less heat when operating." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0049]. The claims therefore improve processor thermal protection behavior by modifying stored protection temperature limits when abnormal fan operation is detected, allowing the processor to respond earlier to degraded cooling conditions. Importantly, the amended claims now explicitly recite the protection temperatures to be "maintained by the system management unit," tying the claimed improvement directly to the SMU's internal thermal protection logic rather than to generic data processing. This is a technical improvement to processor thermal management that protects both the processor from thermal damage and the circuit board from overheating to unsafe levels, not a generic automation of a mental task. (see Remarks, pg. 10, paragraph 3)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant has set forth uses and advantages of use (i.e. benefits) of the claimed invention without providing any arguments/rationales/evidence to how/why the previously and newly presented additional elements amount to an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to another technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a) and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II); i.e. The applicant has failed to provide any arguments/rationales/evidence as to how/why the claimed limitations provide an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to modifying a value of one or more processor temperature limits as recited in claim 1, and similarly in claims 11 and 15). Hence, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments,
New dependent claim 21 further confirms at Step 2A Prong 1 that the claimed modification is not a mental process or abstract data manipulation. Claim 21 recites that "wherein reducing the one or more protection temperatures further comprises changing a temperature at which the system management unit reduces functionality of the processor." This limitation makes explicit that the claimed modification directly changes the physical operating conditions under which the processor hardware throttles. A human cannot mentally change the temperature at which a system management unit reduces processor functionality. (see Remarks, pg. 10, paragraph 4 - pg. 11, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitation of "wherein reducing the one or more protection temperatures further comprises changing a temperature at which the system management unit reduces functionality of the processor”, as newly presented, merely further details the
of the limitation of “… reducing the one or more protection temperatures …” in the rejection of claim 1, and similarly claims 11 and 15, under 35 U.S.C. 101 and stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rational (i.e. as falling within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas) as set forth in claim 1, and similarly claims 11 and 15. Hence, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s argument,
New dependent claim 22 further integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 22 recites that "reducing the one or more protection temperatures causes the processor to compensate for reduced cooling provided by the abnormal operation of the fan." The reduction of protection temperatures is specifically tied to compensating for a real-world physical condition: reduced cooling from an abnormally operating fan. This is a specific technical purpose, not generic data processing. (see Remarks, pg. 11, paragraph 2)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner respectfully notes claim 22 was previously discussed in the Applicant-Initiated Interview on 21 July 2022, which the examiner stated failed to obviate the 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 20 April 2026. Further, the examiner maintains the limitation of “compensate” is not more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent; see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and fails to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection as set forth below. In step 2A, prong two, “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) Hence, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s argument,
New dependent claim 23 further specifies the mechanism of this improvement. Claim 23 recites that "reducing the one or more protection temperatures causes the processor to compensate for reduced cooling provided by the abnormal operation of the fan by causing the processor to reduce functionality at a temperature lower than a throttling temperature previously stored for the processor." This recites the specific technical mechanism by which the claims improve processor thermal management, by lowering the temperature at which the processor reduces functionality, the processor generates less heat earlier, compensating for the degraded cooling. As the specification explains, reducing the throttling temperature "causes the processor to reduce computational actions at a lower temperature than the throttling temperature stored for the processor" which "allows the processor to compensate, to a degree, for reduced cooling provided by an abnormally operating fan by generating less heat when operating." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0049]. This is a concrete technical improvement to processor operation, not an abstract idea. (see Remarks, pg. 11, paragraph 3)
The applicant’s argument is moot in light of claim 23 overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1 and 22.
With respect to the applicant’s argument,
The specific combination of receiving fan speed signals, detecting abnormal fan operation, and modifying stored processor temperature limits in response is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. (see Remarks, pg. 11, paragraph 4 - pg. 12, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner recognizes the applicant has merely set forth a broad and conclusionary statement without providing any specific arguments/rationales/evidence as to why the claimed limitations individually and/or in combination is significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s argument,
The cited references do not disclose modifying stored processor temperature limits in response to detected fan abnormality. The claims introduce specific control logic that modifies operational parameters governing processor hardware behavior in response to real-time fan condition monitoring. (see Remarks, pg. 11, paragraph 4 - pg. 12, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2104 III. - SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY
A claimed invention must be eligible for patenting. As explained in MPEP § 2106, there are two criteria for determining subject matter eligibility: (a) first, a claimed invention must fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter; and (b) second, a claimed invention must be directed to patent-eligible subject matter and not a judicial exception (unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception). The judicial exceptions are subject matter which courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980 (2014) (citing Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 66, 70, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1979 (2013)). See also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 601, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1005-06 (2010) (citing Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309, 206 USPQ 193, 197 (1980)).
See MPEP § 2106 for a discussion of subject matter eligibility in general, and the analytical framework that is to be used during examination for evaluating whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter, MPEP § 2106.03 for a discussion of the statutory categories of invention, MPEP § 2106.04 for a discussion of the judicial exceptions, and MPEP § 2106.05 for a discussion of how to evaluate claims directed to a judicial exception for eligibility. See MPEP § 2106.07(a)(1) for form paragraphs for use in rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a lack of subject matter eligibility. See also MPEP § 2105 for more information about claiming living subject matter, as well as the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA )'s prohibition against claiming human organisms.
Eligible subject matter is further limited by the Atomic Energy Act explained in MPEP § 2104.01, which prohibits patents granted on any invention or discovery that is useful solely in the utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy in an atomic weapon.
The criteria set forth for eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 does not require the lack of disclosure or teaching of claimed subject matter in cited references per MPEP 2104 III (i.e. the lack of citing references under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 does not provide evidence that the claimed invention is eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101).
In addition, the examiner notes the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “… real-time fan condition monitoring.”) are not recited in rejected claim 1, 11, and 15. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Hence, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 12-17, filed 6 August 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-6, 9-13, 15-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the arguments, in light of the claim amendment filed on 6 August 2026, do not apply to the new combination of the references being used in the current 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections as follows:
Claims 1, 5, 11, 15, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0132382 A1 (hereinafter Baran) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0417284 A1 (hereinafter Hamlin) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0026231 A1 (hereinafter Ignowski).
Claims 2, 4, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0090888 A1 (hereinafter Anderson).
Claims 3, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0191506 A1 (hereinafter Landreth).
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0270276 A1 (hereinafter Wu).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski, Anderson, and Wu.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski, Wu, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0154415 A1 (hereinafter Zeighami).
Claims 21-23 stand objected to, claims 1-6, 9-13, 15-18, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and claims 1-6, 9-13, 15-18, and 20-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 recites the antecedent issue of “… reducing the one or more protection temperatures …” in lines 1-2. Suggested claim language: “… the reducing of the one or more protection temperatures …”; and for the purpose of examination the limitations has been interpreted as such.
Claim 22 recites the antecedent issue of “… reducing the one or more protection temperatures …” in lines 1-2. Suggested claim language: “… the reducing of the one or more protection temperatures …”; and for the purpose of examination the limitations has been interpreted as such.
Claim 23 recites the antecedent issue of “… reducing the one or more protection temperatures …” in lines 1-2. Suggested claim language: “… the reducing of the one or more protection temperatures …”; and for the purpose of examination the limitations has been interpreted as such.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 9-13, 15-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
At step 1, the claim recites “(a) device” comprising of concrete devices (i.e. a fan and processor), and therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… detect abnormal operation of the fan in response to the speed of the fan satisfying one or more conditions” and “in response to the detecting of the abnormal operation of the fan, reduce one or more protection temperatures of the processor, wherein the one or more protection temperatures comprise one or more processor temperature limits …, and wherein reducing the one or more protection temperatures comprises modifying a value of the one or more processor temperature limits”.
The limitation of “… detect abnormal operation of the fan in response to the speed of the fan satisfying one or more conditions”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “detect” in the context of the claim encompasses an analysis of data to obtain additional information (i.e. an analysis of data compared to criteria to determine an operation state that is not normal). (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “in response to the detecting of the abnormal operation of the fan, reduce one or more protection temperatures of the processor, wherein the one or more protection temperatures comprise one or more processor temperature limits …, and wherein reducing the one or more protection temperatures comprises modifying a value of the one or more processor temperature limits”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “… reduce one or more protection temperatures of the processor … and wherein reducing the one or more protection temperatures comprises modifying a value of the one or more processor temperature limits”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “in response to detecting abnormal operation of the fan…”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a fan”; “a processor coupled to the fan, the processor including a system management unit …”; “receive one or more signals from the fan indicating a speed of the fan”; and “… the one or more protection temperatures comprise one or more processor temperature limits stored in the processor and maintained by the system management unit …”.
The limitations “a processor coupled to the fan, the processor including a system management unit …” and “… the one or more protection temperatures comprise one or more processor temperature limits … maintained by the system management unit …” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “a fan” is generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “receive one or more signals from the fan indicating a speed of the fan” represents mere data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and so generically it represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… the one or more protection temperatures comprise one or more processor temperature limits stored in the processor …” represents mere data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and so generically it represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “a processor coupled to the fan, the processor including a system management unit …” and “… the one or more protection temperatures comprise one or more processor temperature limits … maintained by the system management unit …”, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The additional limitation of “a fan” merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “receive one or more signals from the fan indicating a speed of the fan”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
The limitation of “… the one or more protection temperatures comprise one or more processor temperature limits stored in the processor …”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2:
The limitation of claim 2 merely further details “… reduce one or more protection temperatures of the processor …” of claim 1; and is herein addressed for the rationale set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 3:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… increase the one or more protection temperatures of the processor in response to no longer detecting the abnormal operation of the fan”.
The limitation of “… increase the one or more protection temperatures of the processor in response to no longer detecting the abnormal operation of the fan”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “… increase the one or more protection temperatures of the processor …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… in response to no longer detecting the abnormal operation of the fan”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 4:
The limitation of claim 4 merely further details “one or more protection temperatures” of claims 1 and 2; and is herein addressed for the rationale set forth above in claims 1 and 2.
Claim 5:
The limitation of claim 5 merely further details “one or more protection temperatures” of claim 1; and is herein addressed for the rationale set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 6:
The limitation of claim 6 merely further details the detection of the abnormal operation of the fan of claim 1; and is herein addressed for the rationale set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 9:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… transmit a notification to a display device for presentation to a user, the notification indicating the detection of the abnormal operation of the fan”.
The limitation “… a display device for presentation to a user …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… transmit a notification …, the notification indicating the detection of the abnormal operation of the fan” represents merely outputting data. The “transmit(ing)” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… a display device for presentation to a user …”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… transmit a notification …, the notification indicating the detection of the abnormal operation of the fan”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10:
The limitation of claim 10 merely further details “the notification” of claim 9; and is herein addressed for the rationale set forth above in claim 9.
Claim 11:
Claim 11 represents an equivalent computer program product claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
The claim further recites the additional limitation of “a non-transitory computer readable medium, the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions executable by a system management unit of a processor …”.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a non-transitory computer readable medium, the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions executable by a system management unit of a processor …”.
The limitation of “a non-transitory computer readable medium, the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions executable by a system management unit of a processor …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “a non-transitory computer readable medium, the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions executable by a system management unit of a processor …”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 represents an equivalent computer program product claim to claim 2 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 2.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 represents an equivalent computer program product claim to claim 3 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 3.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 2 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 2.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 3 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 3.
Claim 18:
The limitation of claim 18 merely further details “the detection of the abnormal operation of the fan” of claim 15; and is herein addressed for the rationale set forth above in claim 15. (Examiner’s Note: Claim 15 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1).
Claim 20:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… transmitting a notification to a display device for presentation to a user, the notification indicating the abnormal operation of the fan was detected”.
The limitation “… a display device for presentation to a user …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… transmitting a notification …, the notification indicating the abnormal operation of the fan was detected” represents merely outputting data. The “transmit(ing)” is recited at a high level of general and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… a display device for presentation to a user …”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… transmitting a notification …, the notification indicating the abnormal operation of the fan was detected”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 21:
The limitation of claim 21 merely further details “reducing the one or more protection temperature” of claim 1; and is herein addressed for the rationale set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 22:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… reducing the one or more protection temperatures causes the processor to compensate for reduced cooling provided by the abnormal operation of the fan”.
The limitation of “… reducing the one or more protection temperatures causes the processor to compensate for reduced cooling provided by the abnormal operation of the fan” is a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).” (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… reducing the one or more protection temperatures causes the processor to compensate for reduced cooling provided by the abnormal operation of the fan” represents equivalent recitations of the phrase “apply it”, wherein the courts have identified limitations that “(m)erely recit(e) the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent)” with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept …”. (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
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, 5, 11, 15, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0132382 A1 (hereinafter Baran) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0417284 A1 (hereinafter Hamlin) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0026231 A1 (hereinafter Ignowski).
As per claim 1, Baran substantially teaches the applicant’s claimed invention. Baron teaches the limitations of a device (pg. 2, par. [0027] and Figs. 1 and 2, element C; i.e. a controller and [0027]: “The controller C includes a main printed circuit board assembly (PCBA) P1 that includes a microprocessor MP and related electronic components for operating the controller C including the fans F1,F2 as described herein.”) comprising:
a fan (pg. 2, par. [0027] and Figs. 1 and 2, elements F1 and F2; i.e. fans and [0027]: “The controller C includes a main printed circuit board assembly (PCBA) P1 that includes a microprocessor MP and related electronic components for operating the controller C including the fans F1,F2 as described herein.”); and
a processor (Fig. 2, element MP; i.e. microprocessor) coupled to the fan (pg. 2, par. [0027]; i.e. “The controller C includes a main printed circuit board assembly (PCBA) P1 that includes a microprocessor MP and related electronic components for operating the controller C including the fans F1,F2 as described herein. More particularly, the fans F1, F2 are operated by the processor MP and other electronic circuitry of the printed circuit board assembly P1 to function as either an exhaust fan (preferably when the fan module FM is installed as the first/upper fan F1) or an intake fan (preferably when the fan module FM is installed as the second/lower fan F2) to induce forced air convection FX through the forced-convection chamber FC to cool the microprocessor and other components of the controller module C.”), the processor configured to:
receive one or more signals from the fan indicating a speed of the fan (pg. 6, par. [0049]; i.e. “As also shown in FIG. 11, in a step SM1 the processor MP controls each fan module FM to run at a select set speed (RPM), and the processor MP also receives feedback and monitors the actual speed of the fan being controlled.”); and
detect abnormal operation of the fan in response to the speed of the fan satisfying one or more conditions (pg. 6, par. [0049], [0050], and [0052]; i.e. [0049]: “In a step SM2, the processor MP determines if the speed of each fan module FM is correct, meaning that the actual measured speed of the fan module is compared with the fan speed set by the processor MP. In step SM2, the processor MP determines if the fan speed is below a select minimum level and/or a deviation between the fan set speed and the actual fan speed indicates that the fan is beginning to fail or has failed (e.g., the motor has burned out, the fan is jammed, etc. if the fan speed is zero) in which case the processor MP will take corrective or remedial action such as steps SM3-SM5.”).
Not explicitly taught are the processor including a system management unit; and
in response to the detecting of the abnormal operation of the fan, reduce one or more protection temperatures of the processor, wherein the one or more protection temperatures comprise one or more processor temperature limits stored in the processor and maintained by the system management unit, and wherein reducing the one or more protection temperatures comprises modifying a value of the one or more processor temperature limits.
However Hamlin, an analogous art of hardware devices operated according to one or more policies (pg. 1, par. [0004]), teaches the missing limitations of in response to detecting of an abnormal operation of a fan, reduce one or more protection temperatures of a processor, wherein the one or more protection temperatures comprise one or more processor temperature limits (pg. 8, par. [0073] and [0075] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0081] and [0082]; i.e. [0073]: “For example, a thermal policy may specify temperature settings at which throttling of IHS resources is to be initiated. A thermal policy may additionally or alternatively specify temperature thresholds at which shutdown operations are to be initiated within the IHS.”, [0075]: “For example, a thermal policy provided by an operating system of the IHS may specify a temperature threshold or other type of temperature condition that will trigger throttling of the processing resources of the IHS, which may include the main processors and various other processors and/or controllers. Another thermal policy may be specified by the BIOS of the IHS and may specify its own temperature thresholds for triggering resource throttling.”, [0081]: “For instance, as described, a thermal policy may specify temperature thresholds at which throttling of IHS processing resources will be initiated. In such instances, consumers 410 registering as users of the thermal policy may be software programs associated with the various hardware components of the IHS that include processing resources that may throttled in response to rising temperatures.”, and [0082]: “… the BIOS may reduce the thresholds for initiating throttling in response to a fan failure …”), and
wherein reducing the one or more protection temperatures comprises modifying a value of the one or more processor temperature limits (pgs. 9-10, par. [0081] and [0082]; i.e. [0081]: “For instance, as described, a thermal policy may specify temperature thresholds at which throttling of IHS processing resources will be initiated. In such instances, consumers 410 registering as users of the thermal policy may be software programs associated with the various hardware components of the IHS that include processing resources that may throttled in response to rising temperatures.”, and [0082]: “… the BIOS may reduce the thresholds for initiating throttling in response to a fan failure …”) for the purpose of setting temperature thresholds for throttling and/or shutdown operations (Hamlin: pg. 8, par. [0073] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran to include the addition of the limitations of in response to detecting of an abnormal operation of a fan, reduce one or more protection temperatures of a processor, wherein the one or more protection temperatures comprise one or more processor temperature limits, and wherein reducing the one or more protection temperatures comprises modifying a value of the one or more processor temperature limits to quickly and efficiently process, store or communicate information (Hamlin: pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Baran in view of Hamlin does not expressly teach the processor including a system management unit; and
wherein the one or more protection temperatures comprise one or more processor temperature limits stored in the processor and maintained by the system management unit.
However Ignowski, in analogous art of temperature management system (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of a processor including a system management unit (pg. 5, par. [0054] and Fig. 4, element 350; i.e. thermal control logic and [0054]: “As shown in FIG. 4, thermal control logic 350 may be implemented in circuitry of a processor, e.g., within a power control unit or other processor circuitry.”); and
wherein one or more protection temperature comprise one or more processor temperature limits stored in the processor and maintained by the system management unit (pg. 5, par. [0054]; i.e. ““As shown in FIG. 4, thermal control logic 350 may be implemented in circuitry of a processor, e.g., within a power control unit or other processor circuitry. As seen, a configuration storage 360 is present and may be configured to store various configuration information, which may be programmable or fused. In some embodiments, at least some of the information stored within configuration storage 360 may be received via BIOS. … Configuration storage 360 further includes a plurality of thermal threshold storages 364.sub.0-364.sub.x. As an example, thermal thresholds TP0-TP3 may be stored here. Alternately or in addition, a fused temperature storage 365 may store a maximum specified temperature at which the processor is allowed to operate, and which may be set by an original equipment manufacturer. In addition, a plurality of thermal offset storages 366.sub.0-366.sub.y may be present. In some embodiments using a combination of the fused temperature stored in storage 365 and the offsets in offset storages 366, the thermal thresholds may be generated independently. That is, in some embodiments the fused value and offsets may be used to generate thermal thresholds without the need for their independent storage in the configuration storage.”) for the purpose of generating thermal thresholds (pg. 5, par. [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran in view of Hamlin to include the addition of the limitations of a processor including a system management unit; and wherein one or more protection temperature comprise one or more processor temperature limits stored in the processor and maintained by the system management unit to advantageously avoid creations of hotspots within a processor and/or react quickly to an incidence of such hotspots to maintain high levels of performance while reducing thermal events that can cause degradations in performance (Ignowski: pg. 1, par. [0017]).
As per claim 5, Baran does not expressly teach the one or more protection temperatures comprise one or more of a processor throttling temperature and a processor shut-off temperature.
However Hamlin, an analogous art of hardware devices operated according to one or more policies (pg. 1, par. [0004]), teaches the missing limitation of the one or more protection temperatures comprise one or more of a processor throttling temperature and a processor shut-off temperature (pg. 8, par. [0073] and [0075] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0081] and [0082]; i.e. [0073]: “For example, a thermal policy may specify temperature settings at which throttling of IHS resources is to be initiated. A thermal policy may additionally or alternatively specify temperature thresholds at which shutdown operations are to be initiated within the IHS.”, [0075]: “For example, a thermal policy provided by an operating system of the IHS may specify a temperature threshold or other type of temperature condition that will trigger throttling of the processing resources of the IHS, which may include the main processors and various other processors and/or controllers. Another thermal policy may be specified by the BIOS of the IHS and may specify its own temperature thresholds for triggering resource throttling.”, and [0081]: “For instance, as described, a thermal policy may specify temperature thresholds at which throttling of IHS processing resources will be initiated. In such instances, consumers 410 registering as users of the thermal policy may be software programs associated with the various hardware components of the IHS that include processing resources that may throttled in response to rising temperatures.”) for the purpose of setting temperature thresholds for throttling and/or shutdown operations (pg. 8, par. [0073] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran to include the addition of the limitation of the one or more protection temperatures comprise one or more of a processor throttling temperature and a processor shut-off temperature to quickly and efficiently process, store or communicate information (Hamlin: pg. 1, par. [0002]).
As per claim 11, Baran substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Baron teaches the limitations of a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium, the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions executable by a processor (pg. 2, par. [0027] and Fig. 2, element MP; i.e. a computer product that allows a microprocessor to perform monitoring of an operational status of a fan and [0027]: “The controller C includes a main printed circuit board assembly (PCBA) P1 that includes a microprocessor MP and related electronic components for operating the controller C including the fans F1,F2 as described herein. More particularly, the fans F1, F2 are operated by the processor MP and other electronic circuitry of the printed circuit board assembly P1 to function as either an exhaust fan (preferably when the fan module FM is installed as the first/upper fan F1) or an intake fan (preferably when the fan module FM is installed as the second/lower fan F2) to induce forced air convection FX through the forced-convection chamber FC to cool the microprocessor and other components of the controller module C.”) to:
receive, by the processor, one or more signals from a fan indicating a speed of the fan (pg. 6, par. [0049]; i.e. “As also shown in FIG. 11, in a step SM1 the processor MP controls each fan module FM to run at a select set speed (RPM), and the processor MP also receives feedback and monitors the actual speed of the fan being controlled.”); and
detect abnormal operation of the fan coupled to the processor in response to the speed of the fan satisfying one or more conditions (pg. 6, par. [0049], [0050], and [0052]; i.e. [0049]: “In a step SM2, the processor MP determines if the speed of each fan module FM is correct, meaning that the actual measured speed of the fan module is compared with the fan speed set by the processor MP. In step SM2, the processor MP determines if the fan speed is below a select minimum level and/or a deviation between the fan set speed and the actual fan speed indicates that the fan is beginning to fail or has failed (e.g., the motor has burned out, the fan is jammed, etc. if the fan speed is zero) in which case the processor MP will take corrective or remedial action such as steps SM3-SM5.”).
Not explicitly taught are a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium, the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions executable by a system management unit of a processor; and
in response to the detecting of the abnormal operation of the fan, reduce one or more protection temperatures of the processor, wherein the one or more protection temperatures comprise one or more processor temperature limits stored in the processor and maintained by the system management unit, and wherein reducing the one or more protection temperatures comprises modifying a value of the one or more processor temperature limits.
However Hamlin, an analogous art of hardware devices operated according to one or more policies (pg. 1, par. [0004]), teaches the missing limitations of in response to detecting of an abnormal operation of a fan, reduce one or more protection temperatures of a processor, wherein the one or more protection temperatures comprise one or more processor temperature limits (pg. 8, par. [0073] and [0075] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0081] and [0082]; i.e. [0073]: “For example, a thermal policy may specify temperature settings at which throttling of IHS resources is to be initiated. A thermal policy may additionally or alternatively specify temperature thresholds at which shutdown operations are to be initiated within the IHS.”, [0075]: “For example, a thermal policy provided by an operating system of the IHS may specify a temperature threshold or other type of temperature condition that will trigger throttling of the processing resources of the IHS, which may include the main processors and various other processors and/or controllers. Another thermal policy may be specified by the BIOS of the IHS and may specify its own temperature thresholds for triggering resource throttling.”, [0081]: “For instance, as described, a thermal policy may specify temperature thresholds at which throttling of IHS processing resources will be initiated. In such instances, consumers 410 registering as users of the thermal policy may be software programs associated with the various hardware components of the IHS that include processing resources that may throttled in response to rising temperatures.”, and [0082]: “… the BIOS may reduce the thresholds for initiating throttling in response to a fan failure …”), and
wherein reducing the one or more protection temperatures comprises modifying a value of the one or more processor temperature limits (pgs. 9-10, par. [0081] and [0082]; i.e. [0081]: “For instance, as described, a thermal policy may specify temperature thresholds at which throttling of IHS processing resources will be initiated. In such instances, consumers 410 registering as users of the thermal policy may be software programs associated with the various hardware components of the IHS that include processing resources that may throttled in response to rising temperatures.”, and [0082]: “… the BIOS may reduce the thresholds for initiating throttling in response to a fan failure …”) for the purpose of setting temperature thresholds for throttling and/or shutdown operations (pg. 8, par. [0073] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran to include the addition of the limitations of in response to detecting of an abnormal operation of a fan, reduce one or more protection temperatures of a processor, wherein the one or more protection temperatures comprise one or more processor temperature limits, and wherein reducing the one or more protection temperatures comprises modifying a value of the one or more processor temperature limits to quickly and efficiently process, store or communicate information (Hamlin: pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Baran in view of Hamlin does not expressly teach a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium, the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions executable by a system management unit of a processor; and
wherein the one or more protection temperatures comprise one or more processor temperature limits stored in the processor and maintained by the system management unit.
However Ignowski, in analogous art of temperature management system (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium, the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions executable by a system management unit of a processor (pg. 5, par. [0054], pg. 12, par. [0140], and Fig. 4, element 350; i.e. thermal control logic, [0054]: “As shown in FIG. 4, thermal control logic 350 may be implemented in circuitry of a processor, e.g., within a power control unit or other processor circuitry. As seen, a configuration storage 360 is present and may be configured to store various configuration information, which may be programmable or fused. In some embodiments, at least some of the information stored within configuration storage 360 may be received via BIOS. … Configuration storage 360 further includes a plurality of thermal threshold storages 364.sub.0-364.sub.x. As an example, thermal thresholds TP0-TP3 may be stored here. Alternately or in addition, a fused temperature storage 365 may store a maximum specified temperature at which the processor is allowed to operate, and which may be set by an original equipment manufacturer. In addition, a plurality of thermal offset storages 366.sub.0-366.sub.y may be present. In some embodiments using a combination of the fused temperature stored in storage 365 and the offsets in offset storages 366, the thermal thresholds may be generated independently. That is, in some embodiments the fused value and offsets may be used to generate thermal thresholds without the need for their independent storage in the configuration storage.”, and [0140]: “Embodiments may be implemented in code and may be stored on a non-transitory storage medium having stored thereon instructions which can be used to program a system to perform the instructions.”); and
wherein one or more protection temperature comprise one or more processor temperature limits stored in the processor and maintained by the system management unit (pg. 5, par. [0054]; i.e. “As shown in FIG. 4, thermal control logic 350 may be implemented in circuitry of a processor, e.g., within a power control unit or other processor circuitry. As seen, a configuration storage 360 is present and may be configured to store various configuration information, which may be programmable or fused. In some embodiments, at least some of the information stored within configuration storage 360 may be received via BIOS. … Configuration storage 360 further includes a plurality of thermal threshold storages 364.sub.0-364.sub.x. As an example, thermal thresholds TP0-TP3 may be stored here. Alternately or in addition, a fused temperature storage 365 may store a maximum specified temperature at which the processor is allowed to operate, and which may be set by an original equipment manufacturer. In addition, a plurality of thermal offset storages 366.sub.0-366.sub.y may be present. In some embodiments using a combination of the fused temperature stored in storage 365 and the offsets in offset storages 366, the thermal thresholds may be generated independently. That is, in some embodiments the fused value and offsets may be used to generate thermal thresholds without the need for their independent storage in the configuration storage.”) for the purpose of generating thermal thresholds (pg. 5, par. [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran in view of Hamlin to include the addition of the limitations of a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium, the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions executable by a system management unit of a processor; and wherein one or more protection temperature comprise one or more processor temperature limits stored in the processor and maintained by the system management unit to advantageously avoid creations of hotspots within a processor and/or react quickly to an incidence of such hotspots to maintain high levels of performance while reducing thermal events that can cause degradations in performance (Ignowski: pg. 1, par. [0017]).
As per claim 15, Baran substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Baron teaches the limitations of a method comprising:
detecting, by a processor, a speed at which a fan rotates, the fan coupled to the processor, including receiving one or more signals from the fan indicating the speed at which the fan rotates (pg. 6, par. [0049]; i.e. “As also shown in FIG. 11, in a step SM1 the processor MP controls each fan module FM to run at a select set speed (RPM), and the processor MP also receives feedback and monitors the actual speed of the fan being controlled.”); and
detecting abnormal operation of the fan in response to the speed at which the fan rotates satisfying one or more conditions (pg. 6, par. [0049], [0050], and [0052]; i.e. [0049]: “In a step SM2, the processor MP determines if the speed of each fan module FM is correct, meaning that the actual measured speed of the fan module is compared with the fan speed set by the processor MP. In step SM2, the processor MP determines if the fan speed is below a select minimum level and/or a deviation between the fan set speed and the actual fan speed indicates that the fan is beginning to fail or has failed (e.g., the motor has burned out, the fan is jammed, etc. if the fan speed is zero) in which case the processor MP will take corrective or remedial action such as steps SM3-SM5.”).
Baron does not expressly teach a system management unit of a processor; and
reducing, by the system management unit processor in response to the detecting of the abnormal operation of the fan, one or more protection temperatures of the processor, wherein the one or more protection temperatures comprise one or more processor temperature limits stored in the processor and maintained by the system management unit, and wherein reducing the one or more protection temperatures comprises modifying a value of the one or more processor temperature limits.
However Hamlin, an analogous art of hardware devices operated according to one or more policies (pg. 1, par. [0004]), teaches the missing limitations of reducing, in response to detecting of an abnormal operation of a fan, one or more protection temperatures of a processor, wherein the one or more protection temperatures comprise one or more processor temperature limits (pg. 8, par. [0073] and [0075] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0081] and [0082]; i.e. [0073]: “For example, a thermal policy may specify temperature settings at which throttling of IHS resources is to be initiated. A thermal policy may additionally or alternatively specify temperature thresholds at which shutdown operations are to be initiated within the IHS.”, [0075]: “For example, a thermal policy provided by an operating system of the IHS may specify a temperature threshold or other type of temperature condition that will trigger throttling of the processing resources of the IHS, which may include the main processors and various other processors and/or controllers. Another thermal policy may be specified by the BIOS of the IHS and may specify its own temperature thresholds for triggering resource throttling.”, [0081]: “For instance, as described, a thermal policy may specify temperature thresholds at which throttling of IHS processing resources will be initiated. In such instances, consumers 410 registering as users of the thermal policy may be software programs associated with the various hardware components of the IHS that include processing resources that may throttled in response to rising temperatures.”, and [0082]: “… the BIOS may reduce the thresholds for initiating throttling in response to a fan failure …”), and
wherein reducing the one or more protection temperatures comprises modifying a value of the one or more processor temperature limits (pgs. 9-10, par. [0081] and [0082]; i.e. [0081]: “For instance, as described, a thermal policy may specify temperature thresholds at which throttling of IHS processing resources will be initiated. In such instances, consumers 410 registering as users of the thermal policy may be software programs associated with the various hardware components of the IHS that include processing resources that may throttled in response to rising temperatures.”, and [0082]: “… the BIOS may reduce the thresholds for initiating throttling in response to a fan failure …”) for the purpose of setting temperature thresholds for throttling and/or shutdown operations (pg. 8, par. [0073] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran to include the addition of the limitations of reducing, in response to detecting of an abnormal operation of a fan, one or more protection temperatures of a processor; and wherein the one or more protection temperatures comprise one or more processor temperature limits, and wherein reducing the one or more protection temperatures comprises modifying a value of the one or more processor temperature limits to quickly and efficiently process, store or communicate information (Hamlin: pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Baran in view of Hamlin does not expressly teach a system management unit of a processor; and
wherein the one or more protection temperatures comprise one or more processor temperature limits stored in the processor and maintained by the system management unit.
However Ignowski, in analogous art of temperature management system (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of a system management unit of a processor (pg. 5, par. [0054] and Fig. 4, element 350; i.e. thermal control logic and [0054]: “As shown in FIG. 4, thermal control logic 350 may be implemented in circuitry of a processor, e.g., within a power control unit or other processor circuitry.”); and
wherein one or more protection temperature comprise one or more processor temperature limits stored in the processor and maintained by the system management unit (pg. 5, par. [0054]; i.e. “… thermal control logic 350 may be implemented in circuitry of a processor, e.g., within a power control unit or other processor circuitry. As seen, a configuration storage 360 is present and may be configured to store various configuration information, which may be programmable or fused. In some embodiments, at least some of the information stored within configuration storage 360 may be received via BIOS. … Configuration storage 360 further includes a plurality of thermal threshold storages 364.sub.0-364.sub.x. As an example, thermal thresholds TP0-TP3 may be stored here. Alternately or in addition, a fused temperature storage 365 may store a maximum specified temperature at which the processor is allowed to operate, and which may be set by an original equipment manufacturer. In addition, a plurality of thermal offset storages 366.sub.0-366.sub.y may be present. In some embodiments using a combination of the fused temperature stored in storage 365 and the offsets in offset storages 366, the thermal thresholds may be generated independently. That is, in some embodiments the fused value and offsets may be used to generate thermal thresholds without the need for their independent storage in the configuration storage.”) for the purpose of generating thermal thresholds (pg. 5, par. [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran in view of Hamlin to include the addition of the limitations of a system management unit of a processor; and wherein one or more protection temperature comprise one or more processor temperature limits stored in the processor and maintained by the system management unit to advantageously avoid creations of hotspots within a processor and/or react quickly to an incidence of such hotspots to maintain high levels of performance while reducing thermal events that can cause degradations in performance (Ignowski: pg. 1, par. [0017]).
As per claim 21, Baran does not expressly teach wherein reducing the one or more protection temperatures further comprises changing a temperature at which the system management unit reduces functionality of the processor.
However Hamlin, an analogous art of hardware devices operated according to one or more policies (pg. 1, par. [0004]), teaches the missing limitation of reducing the one or more protection temperatures further comprises changing a temperature which reduces functionality of the processor (pg. 8, par. [0073] and [0075] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0081] and [0082]; i.e. [0073]: “For example, a thermal policy may specify temperature settings at which throttling of IHS resources is to be initiated. A thermal policy may additionally or alternatively specify temperature thresholds at which shutdown operations are to be initiated within the IHS.”, [0075]: “For example, a thermal policy provided by an operating system of the IHS may specify a temperature threshold or other type of temperature condition that will trigger throttling of the processing resources of the IHS, which may include the main processors and various other processors and/or controllers. Another thermal policy may be specified by the BIOS of the IHS and may specify its own temperature thresholds for triggering resource throttling.”, [0081]: “For instance, as described, a thermal policy may specify temperature thresholds at which throttling of IHS processing resources will be initiated. In such instances, consumers 410 registering as users of the thermal policy may be software programs associated with the various hardware components of the IHS that include processing resources that may throttled in response to rising temperatures.”, and [0082]: “… the BIOS may reduce the thresholds for initiating throttling in response to a fan failure …”) for the purpose of setting temperature thresholds for throttling and/or shutdown operations (Hamlin: pg. 8, par. [0073] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran to include the addition of the limitation of reducing the one or more protection temperatures further comprises changing a temperature which reduces functionality of the processor to quickly and efficiently process, store or communicate information (Hamlin: pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Baran in view of Hamlin does not expressly teach a temperature at which the system management unit modifies functionality of the processor.
However Ignowski, in analogous art of temperature management system (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of a temperature at which the system management unit modifies functionality of the processor (pg. 5, par. [0054]; i.e. “As shown in FIG. 4, thermal control logic 350 may be implemented in circuitry of a processor, e.g., within a power control unit or other processor circuitry. As seen, a configuration storage 360 is present and may be configured to store various configuration information, which may be programmable or fused. In some embodiments, at least some of the information stored within configuration storage 360 may be received via BIOS. In the embodiment shown, storage 360 includes a minimum performance state storage 362, which may store an indication of a minimum performance state (also described above as the maximum throttle performance state) in which one or more cores or other processing engines are to be placed when a highest thermal threshold is exceeded by one or more cores. Configuration storage 360 further includes a plurality of thermal threshold storages 364.sub.0-364.sub.x. As an example, thermal thresholds TP0-TP3 may be stored here. Alternately or in addition, a fused temperature storage 365 may store a maximum specified temperature at which the processor is allowed to operate, and which may be set by an original equipment manufacturer. In addition, a plurality of thermal offset storages 366.sub.0-366.sub.y may be present. In some embodiments using a combination of the fused temperature stored in storage 365 and the offsets in offset storages 366, the thermal thresholds may be generated independently. That is, in some embodiments the fused value and offsets may be used to generate thermal thresholds without the need for their independent storage in the configuration storage.”) for the purpose of generating thermal thresholds (pg. 5, par. [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran in view of Hamlin to include the addition of the limitations of a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium, the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions executable by a system management unit of a processor; and wherein one or more protection temperature comprise one or more processor temperature limits stored in the processor and maintained by the system management unit to advantageously avoid creations of hotspots within a processor and/or react quickly to an incidence of such hotspots to maintain high levels of performance while reducing thermal events that can cause degradations in performance (Ignowski: pg. 1, par. [0017]).
As per claim 22, Baran does not expressly teach reducing the one or more protection temperatures causes the processor to compensate for reduced cooling provided by the abnormal operation of the fan.
However Hamlin, an analogous art of hardware devices operated according to one or more policies (pg. 1, par. [0004]), teaches the missing limitation of reducing the one or more protection temperatures causes the processor to compensate for reduced cooling provided by the abnormal operation of the fan (pg. 8, par. [0073] and [0075] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0081] and [0082]; i.e. [0073]: “For example, a thermal policy may specify temperature settings at which throttling of IHS resources is to be initiated. A thermal policy may additionally or alternatively specify temperature thresholds at which shutdown operations are to be initiated within the IHS.”, [0075]: “For example, a thermal policy provided by an operating system of the IHS may specify a temperature threshold or other type of temperature condition that will trigger throttling of the processing resources of the IHS, which may include the main processors and various other processors and/or controllers. Another thermal policy may be specified by the BIOS of the IHS and may specify its own temperature thresholds for triggering resource throttling.”, [0081]: “For instance, as described, a thermal policy may specify temperature thresholds at which throttling of IHS processing resources will be initiated. In such instances, consumers 410 registering as users of the thermal policy may be software programs associated with the various hardware components of the IHS that include processing resources that may throttled in response to rising temperatures.”, and [0082]: “… the BIOS may reduce the thresholds for initiating throttling in response to a fan failure …”) for the purpose of setting temperature thresholds for throttling and/or shutdown operations (Hamlin: pg. 8, par. [0073] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran to include the addition of the limitation of reducing the one or more protection temperatures causes the processor to compensate for reduced cooling provided by the abnormal operation of the fan to quickly and efficiently process, store or communicate information (Hamlin: pg. 1, par. [0002]).
As per claim 23, Baran does not expressly teach wherein reducing the one or more protection temperatures causes the processor to compensate for reduced cooling provided by the abnormal operation of the fan by reducing functionality of the processor at a temperature lower than a throttling temperature previously stored for the processor.
However Hamlin, an analogous art of hardware devices operated according to one or more policies (pg. 1, par. [0004]), teaches the missing limitation of reducing the one or more protection temperatures causes the processor to compensate for reduced cooling provided by the abnormal operation of the fan by reducing functionality of the processor at a temperature lower than another throttling temperature (pg. 8, par. [0073] and [0075] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0081] and [0082]; i.e. [0073]: “For example, a thermal policy may specify temperature settings at which throttling of IHS resources is to be initiated. A thermal policy may additionally or alternatively specify temperature thresholds at which shutdown operations are to be initiated within the IHS.”, [0075]: “For example, a thermal policy provided by an operating system of the IHS may specify a temperature threshold or other type of temperature condition that will trigger throttling of the processing resources of the IHS, which may include the main processors and various other processors and/or controllers. Another thermal policy may be specified by the BIOS of the IHS and may specify its own temperature thresholds for triggering resource throttling.”, [0081]: “For instance, as described, a thermal policy may specify temperature thresholds at which throttling of IHS processing resources will be initiated. In such instances, consumers 410 registering as users of the thermal policy may be software programs associated with the various hardware components of the IHS that include processing resources that may throttled in response to rising temperatures.”, and [0082]: “… the BIOS may reduce the thresholds for initiating throttling in response to a fan failure …”) for the purpose of setting temperature thresholds for throttling and/or shutdown operations (Hamlin: pg. 8, par. [0073] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran to include the addition of the limitation of reducing the one or more protection temperatures causes the processor to compensate for reduced cooling provided by the abnormal operation of the fan by reducing functionality of the processor at a temperature lower than another throttling temperature to quickly and efficiently process, store or communicate information (Hamlin: pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Baran in view of Hamlin does not expressly teach a throttling temperature previously stored for the processor
However Ignowski, in analogous art of temperature management system (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of a throttling temperature previously stored for the processor (pg. 5, par. [0054] and [0056]; i.e. [0054]: “… thermal control logic 350 may be implemented in circuitry of a processor, e.g., within a power control unit or other processor circuitry. As seen, a configuration storage 360 is present and may be configured to store various configuration information, which may be programmable or fused. In some embodiments, at least some of the information stored within configuration storage 360 may be received via BIOS. … Configuration storage 360 further includes a plurality of thermal threshold storages 364.sub.0-364.sub.x. As an example, thermal thresholds TP0-TP3 may be stored here. Alternately or in addition, a fused temperature storage 365 may store a maximum specified temperature at which the processor is allowed to operate, and which may be set by an original equipment manufacturer. In addition, a plurality of thermal offset storages 366.sub.0-366.sub.y may be present. In some embodiments using a combination of the fused temperature stored in storage 365 and the offsets in offset storages 366, the thermal thresholds may be generated independently. That is, in some embodiments the fused value and offsets may be used to generate thermal thresholds without the need for their independent storage in the configuration storage.” and [0056]: “Cores or other engines can be independently and adaptively thermally controlled such that hotter cores are more aggressively throttled and cooler cores are less aggressively throttled. In addition, logic 459 may perform preemptive throttling of one or more cores even when such cores have not exceeded any thermal threshold, when at least one other core of the processor has exceeded a thermal threshold.”) for the purpose of generating thermal thresholds (pg. 5, par. [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran in view of Hamlin to include the addition of the limitation of a throttling temperature previously stored for the processor to advantageously avoid creations of hotspots within a processor and/or react quickly to an incidence of such hotspots to maintain high levels of performance while reducing thermal events that can cause degradations in performance (Ignowski: pg. 1, par. [0017]).
Claims 2, 4, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0090888 A1 (hereinafter Anderson).
As per claim 2, Baran does not expressly teach the reducing of the one or more protection temperatures of the processor maintains a temperature of the device below a touch-temperature limit.
However Hamlin, an analogous art of hardware devices operated according to one or more policies (pg. 1, par. [0004]), teaches the missing limitation of the reducing of the one or more protection temperatures of the processor (pg. 8, par. [0073] and [0075] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0081] and [0082]; i.e. [0073]: “For example, a thermal policy may specify temperature settings at which throttling of IHS resources is to be initiated. A thermal policy may additionally or alternatively specify temperature thresholds at which shutdown operations are to be initiated within the IHS.”, [0075]: “For example, a thermal policy provided by an operating system of the IHS may specify a temperature threshold or other type of temperature condition that will trigger throttling of the processing resources of the IHS, which may include the main processors and various other processors and/or controllers. Another thermal policy may be specified by the BIOS of the IHS and may specify its own temperature thresholds for triggering resource throttling.”, [0081]: “For instance, as described, a thermal policy may specify temperature thresholds at which throttling of IHS processing resources will be initiated. In such instances, consumers 410 registering as users of the thermal policy may be software programs associated with the various hardware components of the IHS that include processing resources that may throttled in response to rising temperatures.”, and [0082]: “… the BIOS may reduce the thresholds for initiating throttling in response to a fan failure …”) for the purpose of setting temperature thresholds for throttling and/or shutdown operations (pg. 8, par. [0073] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran to include the addition of the limitation of the reducing of the one or more protection temperatures of the processor to quickly and efficiently process, store or communicate information (Hamlin: pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Baran in view of Hamlin does not expressly teach maintains a temperature of the device below a touch-temperature limit.
Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski does not expressly teach maintains a temperature of the device below a touch-temperature limit.
However Anderson, in an analogous art monitoring thermal conditions (pgs. 1-2, par. [0013]), teaches the missing limitation of maintaining a temperature of a device (pgs. 2-3, par. [0027]; i.e. “portable computing device”) below a touch-temperature limit (pg. 7, par. [0074] and [0075] and pg. 8, par. [0078]; i.e. [0074]: “… the touch temperature of the PCD 100, as may be indicated by an off-chip sensor 157B, is leveraged by the thermal policy manager 101 to determine thermal management policies suitably for maintaining the touch temperature below a predefined temperature threshold.” and [0078]: “The temperature threshold set by the SAR module 26 when the PCD 100 is recognized to be in policy state 410 may be associated with an adjusted touch temperature …”) for the purpose of deterring a portable computing from reaching a critical temperature that could cause failure of a hardware component (pg. 7, par. [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski to include the addition of the limitation of maintaining a temperature of a device below a touch-temperature limit to advantageously optimize a quality of service by a portable computer device to enhance a user’s experience (Anderson: pg. 1, par. [0010]).
As per claim 4, Baran does not expressly teach the one or more protection temperatures of the processor are reduced by a predefined temperature offset.
However Hamlin, an analogous art of hardware devices operated according to one or more policies (pg. 1, par. [0004]), teaches the missing limitation of the one or more protection temperatures of the processor are reduced (pg. 8, par. [0073] and [0075] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0081] and [0082]; i.e. [0073]: “For example, a thermal policy may specify temperature settings at which throttling of IHS resources is to be initiated. A thermal policy may additionally or alternatively specify temperature thresholds at which shutdown operations are to be initiated within the IHS.”, [0075]: “For example, a thermal policy provided by an operating system of the IHS may specify a temperature threshold or other type of temperature condition that will trigger throttling of the processing resources of the IHS, which may include the main processors and various other processors and/or controllers. Another thermal policy may be specified by the BIOS of the IHS and may specify its own temperature thresholds for triggering resource throttling.”, [0081]: “For instance, as described, a thermal policy may specify temperature thresholds at which throttling of IHS processing resources will be initiated. In such instances, consumers 410 registering as users of the thermal policy may be software programs associated with the various hardware components of the IHS that include processing resources that may throttled in response to rising temperatures.”, and [0082]: “… the BIOS may reduce the thresholds for initiating throttling in response to a fan failure …”) for the purpose of setting temperature thresholds for throttling and/or shutdown operations (pg. 8, par. [0073] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran to include the addition of the limitation of the one or more protection temperatures of the processor to quickly and efficiently process, store or communicate information (Hamlin: pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Baran in view of Hamlin does not expressly teach a predefined temperature offset.
However Ignowski, in analogous art of temperature management system (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of a predefined temperature offset (pg. 5, par. [0054] and [0056]; i.e. [0054]: “… thermal control logic 350 may be implemented in circuitry of a processor, e.g., within a power control unit or other processor circuitry. As seen, a configuration storage 360 is present and may be configured to store various configuration information, which may be programmable or fused. In some embodiments, at least some of the information stored within configuration storage 360 may be received via BIOS. … Configuration storage 360 further includes a plurality of thermal threshold storages 364.sub.0-364.sub.x. As an example, thermal thresholds TP0-TP3 may be stored here. Alternately or in addition, a fused temperature storage 365 may store a maximum specified temperature at which the processor is allowed to operate, and which may be set by an original equipment manufacturer. In addition, a plurality of thermal offset storages 366.sub.0-366.sub.y may be present. In some embodiments using a combination of the fused temperature stored in storage 365 and the offsets in offset storages 366, the thermal thresholds may be generated independently. That is, in some embodiments the fused value and offsets may be used to generate thermal thresholds without the need for their independent storage in the configuration storage.” and [0056]: “Cores or other engines can be independently and adaptively thermally controlled such that hotter cores are more aggressively throttled and cooler cores are less aggressively throttled. In addition, logic 459 may perform preemptive throttling of one or more cores even when such cores have not exceeded any thermal threshold, when at least one other core of the processor has exceeded a thermal threshold.”) for the purpose of generating thermal thresholds (pg. 5, par. [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran in view of Hamlin to include the addition of the limitation of a predefined temperature offset to advantageously avoid creations of hotspots within a processor and/or react quickly to an incidence of such hotspots to maintain high levels of performance while reducing thermal events that can cause degradations in performance (Ignowski: pg. 1, par. [0017]).
As per claim 12, Baran does not expressly teach the reducing of the one or more protection temperatures of the processor maintains a temperature of the processor below a touch-temperature limit.
However Hamlin, an analogous art of hardware devices operated according to one or more policies (pg. 1, par. [0004]), teaches the missing limitation of the reducing of the one or more protection temperatures of the processor (pg. 8, par. [0073] and [0075] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0081] and [0082]; i.e. [0073]: “For example, a thermal policy may specify temperature settings at which throttling of IHS resources is to be initiated. A thermal policy may additionally or alternatively specify temperature thresholds at which shutdown operations are to be initiated within the IHS.”, [0075]: “For example, a thermal policy provided by an operating system of the IHS may specify a temperature threshold or other type of temperature condition that will trigger throttling of the processing resources of the IHS, which may include the main processors and various other processors and/or controllers. Another thermal policy may be specified by the BIOS of the IHS and may specify its own temperature thresholds for triggering resource throttling.”, [0081]: “For instance, as described, a thermal policy may specify temperature thresholds at which throttling of IHS processing resources will be initiated. In such instances, consumers 410 registering as users of the thermal policy may be software programs associated with the various hardware components of the IHS that include processing resources that may throttled in response to rising temperatures.”, and [0082]: “… the BIOS may reduce the thresholds for initiating throttling in response to a fan failure …”) for the purpose of setting temperature thresholds for throttling and/or shutdown operations (pg. 8, par. [0073] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran to include the addition of the limitation of the reducing of the one or more protection temperatures of the processor to quickly and efficiently process, store or communicate information (Hamlin: pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Baran in view of Hamlin does not expressly teach maintains a temperature of the processor below a touch-temperature limit.
Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski does not expressly teach maintains a temperature of the processor below a touch-temperature limit.
However Anderson, in an analogous art monitoring thermal conditions (pgs. 1-2, par. [0013]), teaches the missing limitation of maintaining a temperature of a device (pgs. 2-3, par. [0027]; i.e. “portable computing device”) below a touch-temperature limit (pg. 7, par. [0074] and [0075] and pg. 8, par. [0078]; i.e. [0074]: “… the touch temperature of the PCD 100, as may be indicated by an off-chip sensor 157B, is leveraged by the thermal policy manager 101 to determine thermal management policies suitably for maintaining the touch temperature below a predefined temperature threshold.” and [0078]: “The temperature threshold set by the SAR module 26 when the PCD 100 is recognized to be in policy state 410 may be associated with an adjusted touch temperature …”) for the purpose of deterring a portable computing from reaching a critical temperature that could cause failure of a hardware component (pg. 7, par. [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski to include the addition of the limitation of maintaining a temperature of a device below a touch-temperature limit to advantageously optimize a quality of service by a portable computer device to enhance a user’s experience (Anderson: pg. 1, par. [0010]).
As per claim 16, Baran does not expressly teach the reducing of the one or more protection temperatures of the processor maintains a temperature of the device below a touch-temperature limit.
However Hamlin, an analogous art of hardware devices operated according to one or more policies (pg. 1, par. [0004]), teaches the missing limitation of the reducing of the one or more protection temperatures of the processor (pg. 8, par. [0073] and [0075] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0081] and [0082]; i.e. [0073]: “For example, a thermal policy may specify temperature settings at which throttling of IHS resources is to be initiated. A thermal policy may additionally or alternatively specify temperature thresholds at which shutdown operations are to be initiated within the IHS.”, [0075]: “For example, a thermal policy provided by an operating system of the IHS may specify a temperature threshold or other type of temperature condition that will trigger throttling of the processing resources of the IHS, which may include the main processors and various other processors and/or controllers. Another thermal policy may be specified by the BIOS of the IHS and may specify its own temperature thresholds for triggering resource throttling.”, [0081]: “For instance, as described, a thermal policy may specify temperature thresholds at which throttling of IHS processing resources will be initiated. In such instances, consumers 410 registering as users of the thermal policy may be software programs associated with the various hardware components of the IHS that include processing resources that may throttled in response to rising temperatures.”, and [0082]: “… the BIOS may reduce the thresholds for initiating throttling in response to a fan failure …”) for the purpose of setting temperature thresholds for throttling and/or shutdown operations (pg. 8, par. [0073] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran to include the addition of the limitation of the reducing of the one or more protection temperatures of the processor to quickly and efficiently process, store or communicate information (Hamlin: pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Baran in view of Hamlin does not expressly teach maintains a temperature of the device below a touch-temperature limit.
Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski does not expressly teach maintains a temperature of the device below a touch-temperature limit.
However Anderson, in an analogous art monitoring thermal conditions (pgs. 1-2, par. [0013]), teaches the missing limitation of maintaining a temperature of a device (pgs. 2-3, par. [0027]; i.e. “portable computing device”) below a touch-temperature limit (pg. 7, par. [0074] and [0075] and pg. 8, par. [0078]; i.e. [0074]: “… the touch temperature of the PCD 100, as may be indicated by an off-chip sensor 157B, is leveraged by the thermal policy manager 101 to determine thermal management policies suitably for maintaining the touch temperature below a predefined temperature threshold.” and [0078]: “The temperature threshold set by the SAR module 26 when the PCD 100 is recognized to be in policy state 410 may be associated with an adjusted touch temperature …”) for the purpose of deterring a portable computing from reaching a critical temperature that could cause failure of a hardware component (pg. 7, par. [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski to include the addition of the limitation of maintaining a temperature of a device below a touch-temperature limit to advantageously optimize a quality of service by a portable computer device to enhance a user’s experience (Anderson: pg. 1, par. [0010]).
Claims 3, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0191506 A1 (hereinafter Landreth).
As per claim 3, Baran does not expressly teach increase the one or more protection temperatures of the processor in response to no longer detecting the abnormal operation of the fan.
However Hamlin, an analogous art of hardware devices operated according to one or more policies (pg. 1, par. [0004]), teaches the missing limitation of the one or more protection temperatures of the processor (pg. 8, par. [0073] and [0075] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0081] and [0082]; i.e. [0073]: “For example, a thermal policy may specify temperature settings at which throttling of IHS resources is to be initiated. A thermal policy may additionally or alternatively specify temperature thresholds at which shutdown operations are to be initiated within the IHS.”, [0075]: “For example, a thermal policy provided by an operating system of the IHS may specify a temperature threshold or other type of temperature condition that will trigger throttling of the processing resources of the IHS, which may include the main processors and various other processors and/or controllers. Another thermal policy may be specified by the BIOS of the IHS and may specify its own temperature thresholds for triggering resource throttling.”, [0081]: “For instance, as described, a thermal policy may specify temperature thresholds at which throttling of IHS processing resources will be initiated. In such instances, consumers 410 registering as users of the thermal policy may be software programs associated with the various hardware components of the IHS that include processing resources that may throttled in response to rising temperatures.”, and [0082]: “… the BIOS may reduce the thresholds for initiating throttling in response to a fan failure …”) for the purpose of setting temperature thresholds for throttling and/or shutdown operations (pg. 8, par. [0073] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran to include the addition of the limitation of the one or more protection temperatures of the processor to quickly and efficiently process, store or communicate information (Hamlin: pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Baran in view of Hamlin does not expressly teach increase the one or more protection temperatures of the processor in response to no longer detecting the abnormal operation of the fan.
Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski does not expressly teach increase the one or more protection temperatures of the processor in response to no longer detecting the abnormal operation of the fan.
However Landreth, in an analogous art of operational monitoring of a fan (pg. 2, par. [0021] and [0022]), teaches the missing limitation of reverting back to a standard operation in response to no longer detecting an abnormal operation of a fan (pg. 2, par. [0023]; i.e. “Once the condition triggering the alarm has been remediated, the fan array fault response control system will return to the operating mode and the fan array fault response control system will return the fans to normal operation.”) for the purpose of resuming normal operation (pg. 2, par. [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski to include the addition of the limitation of reverting back to a standard operation in response to no longer detecting an abnormal operation of a fan to advantageously control a cooling operation in an event of a fan failure in an inexpensive manner without impeding access for maintenance and adversely affecting a device’s performance (Landreth: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
As per claim 13, Baran does not expressly teach increase the one or more protection temperatures of the processor in response to no longer detecting the abnormal operation of the fan.
However Hamlin, an analogous art of hardware devices operated according to one or more policies (pg. 1, par. [0004]), teaches the missing limitation of the one or more protection temperatures of the processor (pg. 8, par. [0073] and [0075] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0081] and [0082]; i.e. [0073]: “For example, a thermal policy may specify temperature settings at which throttling of IHS resources is to be initiated. A thermal policy may additionally or alternatively specify temperature thresholds at which shutdown operations are to be initiated within the IHS.”, [0075]: “For example, a thermal policy provided by an operating system of the IHS may specify a temperature threshold or other type of temperature condition that will trigger throttling of the processing resources of the IHS, which may include the main processors and various other processors and/or controllers. Another thermal policy may be specified by the BIOS of the IHS and may specify its own temperature thresholds for triggering resource throttling.”, [0081]: “For instance, as described, a thermal policy may specify temperature thresholds at which throttling of IHS processing resources will be initiated. In such instances, consumers 410 registering as users of the thermal policy may be software programs associated with the various hardware components of the IHS that include processing resources that may throttled in response to rising temperatures.”, and [0082]: “… the BIOS may reduce the thresholds for initiating throttling in response to a fan failure …”) for the purpose of setting temperature thresholds for throttling and/or shutdown operations (pg. 8, par. [0073] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran to include the addition of the limitation of the one or more protection temperatures of the processor to quickly and efficiently process, store or communicate information (Hamlin: pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Baran in view of Hamlin does not expressly teach increase the one or more protection temperatures of the processor in response to no longer detecting the abnormal operation of the fan.
Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski does not expressly teach increase the one or more protection temperatures of the processor in response to no longer detecting the abnormal operation of the fan.
However Landreth, in an analogous art of operational monitoring of a fan (pg. 2, par. [0021] and [0022]), teaches the missing limitation of reverting back to a standard operation in response to no longer detecting an abnormal operation of a fan (pg. 2, par. [0023]; i.e. “Once the condition triggering the alarm has been remediated, the fan array fault response control system will return to the operating mode and the fan array fault response control system will return the fans to normal operation.”) for the purpose of resuming normal operation (pg. 2, par. [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski to include the addition of the limitation of reverting back to a standard operation in response to no longer detecting an abnormal operation of a fan to advantageously control a cooling operation in an event of a fan failure in an inexpensive manner without impeding access for maintenance and adversely affecting a device’s performance (Landreth: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
As per claim 17, Baran does not expressly teach increasing the one or more protection temperatures of the processor in response to no longer detecting the abnormal operation of the fan.
However Hamlin, an analogous art of hardware devices operated according to one or more policies (pg. 1, par. [0004]), teaches the missing limitation of the one or more protection temperatures of the processor (pg. 8, par. [0073] and [0075] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0081] and [0082]; i.e. [0073]: “For example, a thermal policy may specify temperature settings at which throttling of IHS resources is to be initiated. A thermal policy may additionally or alternatively specify temperature thresholds at which shutdown operations are to be initiated within the IHS.”, [0075]: “For example, a thermal policy provided by an operating system of the IHS may specify a temperature threshold or other type of temperature condition that will trigger throttling of the processing resources of the IHS, which may include the main processors and various other processors and/or controllers. Another thermal policy may be specified by the BIOS of the IHS and may specify its own temperature thresholds for triggering resource throttling.”, [0081]: “For instance, as described, a thermal policy may specify temperature thresholds at which throttling of IHS processing resources will be initiated. In such instances, consumers 410 registering as users of the thermal policy may be software programs associated with the various hardware components of the IHS that include processing resources that may throttled in response to rising temperatures.”, and [0082]: “… the BIOS may reduce the thresholds for initiating throttling in response to a fan failure …”) for the purpose of setting temperature thresholds for throttling and/or shutdown operations (pg. 8, par. [0073] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran to include the addition of the limitation of the one or more protection temperatures of the processor to quickly and efficiently process, store or communicate information (Hamlin: pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Baran in view of Hamlin does not expressly teach increasing the one or more protection temperatures of the processor in response to no longer detecting the abnormal operation of the fan.
Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski does not expressly teach increasing the one or more protection temperatures of the processor in response to no longer detecting the abnormal operation of the fan.
However Landreth, in an analogous art of operational monitoring of a fan (pg. 2, par. [0021] and [0022]), teaches the missing limitation of reverting back to a standard operation in response to no longer detecting an abnormal operation of a fan (pg. 2, par. [0023]; i.e. “Once the condition triggering the alarm has been remediated, the fan array fault response control system will return to the operating mode and the fan array fault response control system will return the fans to normal operation.”) for the purpose of resuming normal operation (pg. 2, par. [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski to include the addition of the limitation of reverting back to a standard operation in response to no longer detecting an abnormal operation of a fan to advantageously control a cooling operation in an event of a fan failure in an inexpensive manner without impeding access for maintenance and adversely affecting a device’s performance (Landreth: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0270276 A1 (hereinafter Wu).
As per claim 6, Baran teaches the abnormal operation of the fan is detected in response to the speed of the fan being less than a threshold speed (pg. 6, par. [0049]; i.e. “In step SM2, the processor MP determines if the fan speed is below a select minimum level and/or a deviation between the fan set speed and the actual fan speed indicates that the fan is beginning to fail or has failed (e.g., the motor has burned out, the fan is jammed, etc. if the fan speed is zero) in which case the processor MP will take corrective or remedial action such as steps SM3-SM5.”).
Baran does not expressly teach the abnormal operation of the fan is detected in response to the speed of the fan being less than a threshold speed and a temperature of the processor being greater than a fan activation temperature.
Baran in view of Hamlin does not expressly teach the abnormal operation of the fan is detected in response to the speed of the fan being less than a threshold speed and a temperature of the processor being greater than a fan activation temperature.
Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski does not expressly teach the abnormal operation of the fan is detected in response to the speed of the fan being less than a threshold speed and a temperature of the processor being greater than a fan activation temperature.
However Wu, in an analogous art of temperature management (abstract and pg. 1, par. [0004]), teaches the missing limitation of an abnormal operation of a fan is detected in response to a speed of the fan being less than a threshold speed and a temperature of a processor being greater than a fan activation temperature (pg. 3, par. [0030]; i.e. “… determining whether the electronic device's temperature sensed by the temperature sensor is greater than or equal to the predetermined upper temperature limit, upon determination that the fan's rotation speed is less than or equal to the predetermined lower rotation speed limit (step S203); confirming that the fan of the electronic device is malfunctioning and limiting the processor's performance, upon determination that the electronic device's temperature sensed by the temperature sensor is greater than or equal to the predetermined upper temperature limit (step S205) …”) to carry out a protection method for use in fan malfunction (pg. 1, par. [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski to include the addition of the limitation of an abnormal operation of a fan is detected in response to a speed of the fan being less than a threshold speed and a temperature of a processor being greater than a fan activation temperature to effectively prevent an electronic device's temperature from continuously increasing to avoid adverse performance of a system or damage to components of the system (Wu: pg. 3, par. [0003] and [0008]).
As per claim 9, Baran transmit a notification to a device for presentation to a user, the notification indicating the detection of the abnormal operation of the fan (pg. 5, par. [0043]; i.e. “The processor MP monitors the operational status of each fan module FM and controls the respective indicator I to provide a visual indication of the fan module status to an operator of the controller C. In the present example, a first color (e.g., green) is used to indicate proper fan operation, a second color (e.g., red) is used to indicate fan failure or removal, and a third color (e.g. amber) or intermittent illumination (e.g., flashing green or red) is used to indicate a warning that fan performance has degraded from the preferred level or range. The visual indicators I provide a convenient method for a maintenance person or other user to determine if and why a fault has been indicated. … the controller C preferably implements a fault reporting and logging system to alert users and maintenance personnel that a fault has occurred and to provide information as to the cause of the fault. The reporting and logging of faults and alarms is carried out using a network communication port of the controller C to communicate the fault and alarm to other monitoring or control means that can in turn actively alert the user as soon as and by whatever means they choose (email, pager, text message, stack light, etc.).”).
Baran does not expressly teach transmit a notification to a display device for presentation to a user.
Baran in view of Hamlin does not expressly teach transmit a notification to a display device for presentation to a user.
Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski does not expressly teach transmit a notification to a display device for presentation to a user.
However Wu, in an analogous art of temperature management (abstract and pg. 1, par. [0004]), teaches the missing limitation of transmit a notification to a display device for presentation to a user (pg. 2, par. [0024]; i.e. “… displaying a warning message on a display unit of the electronic device. In the embodiment illustrated by FIG. 2, after determining that the fan is malfunctioning, the controller 24 sends an event to the on-screen display (OSD) or basic input/output system (BIOS) of the electronic device and thereby displays a warning message on the display unit of the electronic device to warn the user. The warning message is, for example, an icon or text in a window, a warning sound or an optical signal.”) to carry out a protection method for use in fan malfunction (pg. 1, par. [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski to include the addition of the limitation of transmit a notification to a display device for presentation to a user to effectively prevent an electronic device's temperature from continuously increasing to avoid adverse performance of a system or damage to components of the system (Wu: pg. 3, par. [0003] and [0008]).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski, Anderson, and Wu.
As per claim 18, Baran teaches the abnormal operation of the fan in response to the speed of the fan being less than a threshold speed (pg. 6, par. [0049]; i.e. “In step SM2, the processor MP determines if the fan speed is below a select minimum level and/or a deviation between the fan set speed and the actual fan speed indicates that the fan is beginning to fail or has failed (e.g., the motor has burned out, the fan is jammed, etc. if the fan speed is zero) in which case the processor MP will take corrective or remedial action such as steps SM3-SM5.”).
Baran does not expressly teach detecting the abnormal operation of the fan in response to the speed of the fan being less than a threshold speed and a temperature of the processor being greater than a fan activation temperature.
Baran in view of Hamlin does not expressly teach detecting the abnormal operation of the fan in response to the speed of the fan being less than a threshold speed and a temperature of the processor being greater than a fan activation temperature.
Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski does not expressly teach detecting the abnormal operation of the fan in response to the speed of the fan being less than a threshold speed and a temperature of the processor being greater than a fan activation temperature.
Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski and Anderson does not expressly teach detecting the abnormal operation of the fan in response to the speed of the fan being less than a threshold speed and a temperature of the processor being greater than a fan activation temperature.
However Wu, in an analogous art of temperature management (abstract and pg. 1, par. [0004]), teaches the missing limitation of detecting an abnormal operation of a fan in response to a speed of the fan being less than a threshold speed and a temperature of a processor being greater than a fan activation temperature (pg. 3, par. [0030]; i.e. “… determining whether the electronic device's temperature sensed by the temperature sensor is greater than or equal to the predetermined upper temperature limit, upon determination that the fan's rotation speed is less than or equal to the predetermined lower rotation speed limit (step S203); confirming that the fan of the electronic device is malfunctioning and limiting the processor's performance, upon determination that the electronic device's temperature sensed by the temperature sensor is greater than or equal to the predetermined upper temperature limit (step S205) …”) to carry out a protection method for use in fan malfunction (pg. 1, par. [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski and Anderson to include the addition of the limitation of detecting an abnormal operation of a fan in response to a speed of the fan being less than a threshold speed and a temperature of a processor being greater than a fan activation temperature to effectively prevent an electronic device's temperature from continuously increasing to avoid adverse performance of a system or damage to components of the system (Wu: pg. 3, par. [0003] and [0008]).
As per claim 20, Baran transmitting a notification to a device for presentation to a user, the notification indicating the abnormal operation of the fan was detected (pg. 5, par. [0043]; i.e. “The processor MP monitors the operational status of each fan module FM and controls the respective indicator I to provide a visual indication of the fan module status to an operator of the controller C. In the present example, a first color (e.g., green) is used to indicate proper fan operation, a second color (e.g., red) is used to indicate fan failure or removal, and a third color (e.g. amber) or intermittent illumination (e.g., flashing green or red) is used to indicate a warning that fan performance has degraded from the preferred level or range. The visual indicators I provide a convenient method for a maintenance person or other user to determine if and why a fault has been indicated. … the controller C preferably implements a fault reporting and logging system to alert users and maintenance personnel that a fault has occurred and to provide information as to the cause of the fault. The reporting and logging of faults and alarms is carried out using a network communication port of the controller C to communicate the fault and alarm to other monitoring or control means that can in turn actively alert the user as soon as and by whatever means they choose (email, pager, text message, stack light, etc.).”).
Baran does not expressly teach transmitting a notification to a display device for presentation to a user.
Baran in view of Hamlin does not expressly teach transmitting a notification to a display device for presentation to a user.
Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski does not expressly teach transmitting a notification to a display device for presentation to a user.
Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski and Anderson does not expressly teach transmitting a notification to a display device for presentation to a user.
However Wu, in an analogous art of temperature management (abstract and pg. 1, par. [0004]), teaches the missing limitation of transmitting a notification to a display device for presentation to a user (pg. 2, par. [0024]; i.e. “… displaying a warning message on a display unit of the electronic device. In the embodiment illustrated by FIG. 2, after determining that the fan is malfunctioning, the controller 24 sends an event to the on-screen display (OSD) or basic input/output system (BIOS) of the electronic device and thereby displays a warning message on the display unit of the electronic device to warn the user. The warning message is, for example, an icon or text in a window, a warning sound or an optical signal.”) to carry out a protection method for use in fan malfunction (pg. 1, par. [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski and Anderson to include the addition of the limitation of transmitting a notification to a display device for presentation to a user to effectively prevent an electronic device's temperature from continuously increasing to avoid adverse performance of a system or damage to components of the system (Wu: pg. 3, par. [0003] and [0008]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski, Wu and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0154415 A1 (hereinafter Zeighami).
As per claim 10, Baran does not expressly teach the notification includes one or more reduced protection temperatures for the processor.
However Hamlin, an analogous art of hardware devices operated according to one or more policies (pg. 1, par. [0004]), teaches the missing limitation of the one or more reduced protection temperatures for the processor (pg. 8, par. [0073] and [0075] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0081] and [0082]; i.e. [0073]: “For example, a thermal policy may specify temperature settings at which throttling of IHS resources is to be initiated. A thermal policy may additionally or alternatively specify temperature thresholds at which shutdown operations are to be initiated within the IHS.”, [0075]: “For example, a thermal policy provided by an operating system of the IHS may specify a temperature threshold or other type of temperature condition that will trigger throttling of the processing resources of the IHS, which may include the main processors and various other processors and/or controllers. Another thermal policy may be specified by the BIOS of the IHS and may specify its own temperature thresholds for triggering resource throttling.”, [0081]: “For instance, as described, a thermal policy may specify temperature thresholds at which throttling of IHS processing resources will be initiated. In such instances, consumers 410 registering as users of the thermal policy may be software programs associated with the various hardware components of the IHS that include processing resources that may throttled in response to rising temperatures.”, and [0082]: “… the BIOS may reduce the thresholds for initiating throttling in response to a fan failure …”) for the purpose of setting temperature thresholds for throttling and/or shutdown operations (pg. 8, par. [0073] and pgs. 9-10, par. [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran to include the addition of the limitation of one or more reduced protection temperatures for the processor to quickly and efficiently process, store or communicate information (Hamlin: pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Baran in view of Hamlin does not expressly teach the notification includes one or more reduced protection temperatures for the processor.
Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski does not expressly teach the notification includes one or more reduced protection temperatures for the processor.
Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski and Wu does not expressly teach the notification includes one or more reduced protection temperatures for the processor.
However Zeighami, in an analogous art of monitoring a temperature control system (pg. 1, par. [0006], teaches the missing limitation of a notification includes one or more modified protection parameters (pg. 8, par. [0072], pg. 9, par. [0080]; i.e. power threshold, [0072]: “VEPO orchestration service 302 may be configured to identify and/or modify an aggregate power threshold associated with the physical environment based at least in part on any suitable combination of: current/aggregate power consumption values (real or predicted) associated with any suitable combination of the host(s) 324 …”, and [0080]: “In some embodiments, application metadata corresponding to current/predicted power consumption values and/or a current/predicted aggregate power threshold may be displayed.”) for the purpose of identifying power cap values (pg. 9, par. 0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Baran in view of Hamlin in further view of Ignowski and Wu to include the addition of the limitation of a notification includes one or more modified protection parameters to advantageously provide temperature management with less impact on devices/components while providing a desired power reduction for a particular situation (Zeighami: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to temperature monitoring and cooling systems/devices/methods.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0332757 A1 discloses systems and methods for maintaining a temperature differential across the systems.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0378149 A1 discloses throttling a performance of a memory device based on detected junction temperature.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0156225 A1 discloses a fan motor control device that controls driving of a fan motor.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0379544 A1 discloses platform power management includes boosting performance in a platform power boost mode or restricting performance to keep a power or temperature under a desired threshold in a platform power cap mode.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0184342 A1 discloses systems, methods, and computer-readable media for managing a cooling system based on dynamic power and temperature conditions of computing hardware (e.g., a system on a chip (SOC), respective hardware blocks on the SOC).
U.S. Patent No. 6,535,798 B1 discloses a system including a component (e.g., a processor) with a clock and a thermal management controller that monitors a temperature in the system.
U.S. Patent No. 6,889,332 B2 discloses power management of computer systems.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
