DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 26 December 2025. Claims 1-3, 9, 11-13, 15-18, and 20 have been amended. Claims 7, 8, 14, and 19 have been cancelled. Claims 1-6, 9-13, 15-18, and 20 are 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 7, filed 26 December 2025, with respect to objected claims 2, 3, 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments 26 December 2025. The objections of claims 2, 3, 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 7, filed 26 December 2025, with respect to rejected claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments 26 December 2025. The rejections of claims 11-13 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 7-10, filed 26 December 2025, with respect to rejected claims 1-6, 9-13, 15-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the Applicant’s argument,
Each of the independent claims recites a processor coupled to a fan, the processor including a system management unit configured to receive one or more signals from the fan indicating a speed of the fan, detect abnormal operation of the fan in response to the fan speed satisfying one or more conditions, and reduce one or more protection temperatures of the processor in response to detecting abnormal fan operation. The claimed process involves detection of fan conditions based on physical signals and modification of hardware-based protection temperature thresholds. These steps require electronic monitoring and control at the hardware level and cannot be performed mentally or with pen and paper. (see Remarks, pg. 8, paragraph 1)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitation of “… a processor coupled to a fan, the processor including a system management unit configured to receive one or more signals from the fan indicating a speed of the fan …” was addressed in Step 2A, prong two and Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility requirement as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 2 October 2025. Hence, the argument is rendered moot.
In addition, the Applicant has merely set forth a recitation of a previously presented claim limitation and a broad and conclusionary statement of “The claimed process involves detection of fan conditions based on physical signals and modification of hardware-based protection temperature thresholds.” The argument does not provide any explanation/rational(s) as to why/how analyzing data from a fan and decreasing/lowering one or more temperature values are steps so complex that they could not reasonably analyzed by a human mind; therefore, the argument is found unpersuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument,
The claimed process automatically adjusts the processor's throttling and shut-off temperature limits by a defined offset based on sensor feedback, thereby protecting the system and the circuit board from overheating. (see Remarks, pg. 9, paragraph 1)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitation of “… automatically adjusts …” is not recited in the rejected claims.
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.
In regards to the Applicant’s argument,
The claimed system management unit operates directly with tangible hardware components: a fan that generates measurable rotational speed signals, a processor that monitors those signals, and temperature sensors that establish operating thresholds. The system automatically detects abnormal operation based on received fan-speed signals and dynamically adjusts protection temperature limits at the processor level. This integration of hardware feedback and control actions imposes meaningful limits on any alleged abstract idea and results in a real-world application that improves the functioning of the computer system itself.
The Applicant has set forth a broad and conclusionary statement asserting the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, as well as, mere recitations of claim limitations, without providing any specific arguments/rationales/evidence as to why the previously presented limitations integrate abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, the limitation of “… automatically adjusts …” and “… dynamically adjusts …” are not recited in the rejected claims. 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 argument,
The claimed features amount to a specific improvement in computer operation, not a generic automation of a mental task. The dynamic modification of hardware-level temperature limits enhances reliability and compliance with safety standards such as IEC 62368-1 by preventing unsafe board temperatures when cooling performance degrades. This improvement in thermal management directly affects processor hardware operation and cannot be considered a mere field-of-use limitation or insignificant extra-solution activity. (see Remarks, pg. 9, paragraph 3)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant has set forth an advantage of use (i.e. a benefit of “The dynamic modification of hardware-level temperature limits enhances reliability and compliance with safety standards such as IEC 62368-1 by preventing unsafe board temperatures when cooling performance degrades.”) without providing any arguments/rationales/evidence to how/why the previously and newly presented additional elements that 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 claimed limitations provide an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to temperature control as recited in claim 1, and similarly in claims 11 and 15). Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive since the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, prong two of the subject matter eligibility requirement).
In regards to the Applicant’s argument,
The system management unit and fan-signal processing described in the claims are not well-understood, routine, or conventional functions. Conventional systems rely on static thermal protection limits and cannot dynamically adjust those limits in response to detected cooling malfunctions. The present claims introduce specific control logic that receives real-time hardware signals from a fan, identifies abnormal conditions, and alters throttling and shut-off temperatures by predetermined offsets stored within the system management unit. (see Remarks, pg. 10, 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). Hence, the Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument,
This specific configuration improves the technical operation of computer systems by preventing hardware damage and ensuring user safety without unnecessary performance loss, rather than performing abstract data analysis. For at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception and, even if they were, recite a practical application and significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is respectfully requested. (see Remarks, pg. 10, paragraph 2)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant has set forth an advantage of use (i.e. a benefit of “… improves the technical operation of computer systems by preventing hardware damage and ensuring user safety without unnecessary performance loss, rather than performing abstract data analysis”) without providing any arguments/rationales/evidence to how/why the previously and newly presented additional elements that 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 claimed limitations provide an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to temperature control as recited in claim 1, and similarly in claims 11 and 15). Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive since the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility requirement).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 10-12, filed 26 December 2025, with respect to rejected claims 11 and 15 under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as follows:
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0270276 A1 (hereinafter Wu) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/01328382 A1 (hereinafter Baran) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0073456 A1 (hereinafter Nguyen) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0137686 A1 (hereinafter Ab).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 10-12, filed 26 December 2025, with respect to rejected claims 1-6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as follows:
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0270276 A1 (hereinafter Wu) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/01328382 A1 (hereinafter Baran) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0073456 A1 (hereinafter Nguyen) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0137686 A1 (hereinafter Ab).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen, Ab, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0090888 A1 (hereinafter Anderson).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen, Ab, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0191506 A1 (hereinafter Landreth).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen, Ab, Anderson, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0067657 A1 (hereinafter Ranganathan).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen, Ab, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0154415 A1 (hereinafter Zeighami).
Claims 12, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen, Ab, and Anderson.
Claim 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen, Ab, and Landreth.
Claims 2-4, 11-13, 16, and 17 are objected to and claims 1-6, 9-13, 15-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 103 as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4, 11-13, 16, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “… reduce one or more protection temperatures of the processor” in lines 8-9 and claim 2 recites “… reducing the one or more protection temperature of the processor …” in lines 1-2. The limitation of “… reducing the one or more protection temperature of the processor …” in claim 2 should read “… the reducing of the one or more protection temperature of the processor …” since the limitation has antecedent support from the limitation of “… reduce one or more protection temperatures of the processor” in claim 1; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 1 recites “… one or more protection temperatures of the processor” in lines 8-9 and claim 3 recites “… the protection temperatures of the processor …” in line 3. The claims appear to recite two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid any ambiguity in the claims, the same term should be recited for each limitation. Suggested claim language: “… the protection temperatures of the processor …” in claim 3 should read “… the one or more protection temperatures of the processor”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 1 recites “… one or more protection temperatures of the processor” in lines 8-9 and claim 4 recites “… the protection temperatures of the processor …” in lines 3-4. The claims appear to recite two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid any ambiguity in the claims, the same term should be recited for each limitation. Suggested claim language: “… the protection temperatures of the processor …” in claim 4 should read “… the one or more protection temperatures of the processor”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 11 recites “a non-transitory computer readable medium” in lines 1-2 and “the computer readable medium” in line 2. The claim appears to recite two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid any ambiguity in the claims, the same term should be recited for each limitation. Suggested claim language: “the computer readable medium” should read “ the non-transitory computer readable medium”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 11 recites “… reduce one or more protection temperatures of the processor” in lines 8-9 and claim 12 recites “… reducing the one or more protection temperature of the processor …” in line 2. The limitation of “… reducing the one or more protection temperature of the processor …” in claim 12 should read “… the reducing of the one or more protection temperature of the processor …” since the limitation has antecedent support from the limitation of “… reduce one or more protection temperatures of the processor” in claim 1; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 11 recites “… one or more protection temperatures of the processor” in lines 8-9 and claim 13 recites “… the protection temperatures of the processor …” in line 3. The claims appear to recite two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid any ambiguity in the claims, the same term should be recited for each limitation. Suggested claim language: “… the protection temperatures of the processor …” in claim 13 should read “… the one or more protection temperatures of the processor”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 15 recites “… reduce one or more protection temperatures of the processor” in lines 7-8 and claim 16 recites “… reducing the one or more protection temperature of the processor …” in lines 1-2. The limitation of “… reducing the one or more protection temperature of the processor …” in claim 16 should read “… the reducing of the one or more protection temperature of the processor …” since the limitation has antecedent support from the limitation of “… reduce one or more protection temperatures of the processor” in claim 15; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 11 recites “… one or more protection temperatures of the processor” in line 8 and claim 17 recites “… the protection temperatures of the processor …” in line 3. The claims appear to recite two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid any ambiguity in the claims, the same term should be recited for each limitation. Suggested claim language: “… the protection temperatures of the processor …” in claim 17 should read “… the one or more protection temperatures of the processor”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation 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 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”.
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”, 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) 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 …”; and “receive one or more signals from the fan indicating a speed of the fan”.
The limitation “a processor coupled to the fan, the processor including a system management unit …” 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 “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)).
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 processor coupled to the fan, the processor including a system management unit …”, 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 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 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 “reducing the protection temperatures of the processor” of claim 1; and is herein addressed for the rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 3:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… increase the protection temperatures of the processor in response to no longer detecting the abnormal operation of the fan”.
The limitation of “… increase the 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 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 “the protection temperatures” of claims 1 and 2; and is herein addressed for the rationales set forth above in claims 1 and 2.
Claim 5:
The limitation of claim 5 merely further details “one or more conditions” of claim 1; and is herein addressed for the rationales 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 rationales 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 generally 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 rationales 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 computer readable medium comprising instructions”.
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 computer readable medium comprising instructions”
The limitation of “a non-transitory computer readable medium, the computer readable medium comprising instructions” 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 computer readable medium comprising instructions”, 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 rationales 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 generally 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.
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, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0270276 A1 (hereinafter Wu) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/01328382 A1 (hereinafter Baran) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0073456 A1 (hereinafter Nguyen) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0137686 A1 (hereinafter Ab).
As per claim 1, Wu substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Wu teaches the limitations of a device (pgs. 1-2, par. [0018] and [0019] and Fig. 1, element 10; i.e. an electronic device); comprising:
a fan (pgs. 1-2, par. [0018] and [0019]; i.e. [0019]: “The fan 11 is provided in the number of one or more to reduce the temperature of the electronic device 10.”); and
a processor (Fig. 1, element 13) coupled to the fan (pgs. 1-2, par. [0019]; i.e. “In an embodiment, the processor 13 is electrically connected to the fan 11 and temperature sensor 12.”), the processor (Fig .1, element 13) coupled to a system management unit (Fig . 2, element 24; i.e. controller) configured to:
detect abnormal operation of the fan in response to a speed of the fan satisfying one or more conditions (pg. 2, par. [0020] and [0021]; i.e. [0020]: “The controller 24 is electrically connected to a fan 21, a temperature sensor 22 and a processor 23. The controller 24 loads a computer program and executes it to carry out the protection method for use in fan malfunctions.” and [0021]: “… a protection method for use in fan malfunctions according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. The protection method comprises the steps of: determining whether the fan's rotation speed is greater than or equal to the predetermined upper rotation speed limit (step S101); 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 greater than or equal to the predetermined upper rotation speed limit (step S103); and determining that the fan of the electronic device malfunctions …”).
Wu does not expressly teach the processor including a system management unit; receive one or more signals from the fan indicating a speed of the fan; and
in response to the detecting of the abnormal operation of the fan, reduce one or more protection temperatures of the processor.
However Baran, in an analogous art of monitoring an operational status of a fan (pg. 5, par. [0043]), teaches the missing limitation of receive one or more signals from a fan indicating a speed of the fan (pg. 6, par. [0049]; i.e. “… 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.”) for the purpose of monitoring fan speed (pg. 6, par. [0049])
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 Wu to include the addition of the limitation of receive one or more signals from a fan indicating a speed of the fan to advantageously optimize a fan’s operation in an event a fan’s failure or degrade in performance, as well as, maximize a life of an electronics controller module (Baran: pg. 1, par. [0003], [0005], and [0006]).
Wu in view of Baran does not expressly teach 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.
However Nguyen, in an analogous art of temperature control for a computer device (pg. 3, par. [0028] and [0029]), teaches the missing limitation of in response to detecting an abnormal operation of a fan (pg. 6, par. [0053] and Fig. 6; i.e. “… set a temperature activation point that indicates whether fan is failing to properly cool the processing resource; obtain a die temperature of one of the cores of the processing resource; determine a temperature difference between the die temperature and a throttle temperature; compare the temperature difference to an activation point; in response that the temperature difference is at most equal to the activation point, decrease the power limit …”), reduce one or more protection parameters (i.e. power limits) of a processor (pg. 6, par. [0052] and Fig. 6, element 602; i.e. a processing resource) for the purpose of managing temperature for a processor (pg. 1, par. [0011] and [0014]).
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 Wu in view of Baran to include the addition of the limitation of in response to detecting an abnormal operation of a fan, reduce one or more protection parameters of a processor to ensure a processor’s thermal envelope is in compliance with its specification (Nguyen: pg. 1, par. [0014]).
Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen does not expressly teach the processor including a system management unit; and
reduce one or more protection temperatures of the processor.
However Ab, in an analogous art temperature control in electronic device (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 8, par. [0077]), teaches the missing limitation of reduce one or more protection temperatures of an electronic device (pg. 2, par. [0018], pg. 3, par. [0025], pg. 7, par. [0063] and [0068] and pg. 8, par. [0077]; i.e. [0018]: “… monitoring errors in operation of the storage device, and based on an occurrence of errors, adjusting at least one of the threshold temperature or the operating temperature lowering actions. … Making adjustments based on error monitoring could also be done during operation of the data storage device, such that the temperature control is adapted to better ensure safe operation of the storage device.”, [0063]: “Errors in the operation of the hard disk drive may be continuously or periodically monitored. If errors occur or if errors occur unacceptably frequently, adjustments to the temperature control scheme may be made. Thus, the threshold temperature T.sub.th may be adjusted, or more specifically lowered.”, and [0077]: “It may be noted that although this disclosure relates to data storage devices, there may also be other electronic devices to which the disclosed temperature control may be applied.”) for the purpose of controlling an operating temperature of a data storage device (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 Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen to include the addition of the limitation of reduce one or more protection temperatures of an electronic device to advantageously provide a better balance between cooling needs and an electronic device performance to enable a better use of the electronic device (Ab: pg. 1, par. [0007]).
Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen and Ab does not expressly teach the processor including a system management unit.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a system management unit reside in a processor, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
As per claim 5, Wu teaches the abnormal operation of the fan is detected in response to the speed of the fan being less than a threshold speed (pg. 3, par. [0030]; i.e. “… 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 …”).
As per claim 6, Wu teaches 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 (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) …”).
As per claim 9, Wu teaches transmit a notification to a display device for presentation to a user, the notification indicating the detection of the abnormal operation of the fan (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.”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen, Ab, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0090888 A1 (hereinafter Anderson).
Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen does not expressly teach reducing the one or more protection temperatures of the processor maintains a temperature of the device below a touch-temperature limit.
However Ab, in an analogous art temperature control in electronic device (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 8, par. [0077]), teaches the missing limitation of reducing the one or more protection temperatures of the electronic device (pg. 2, par. [0018], pg. 3, par. [0025], pg. 7, par. [0063] and [0068] and pg. 8, par. [0077]; i.e. [0018]: “… monitoring errors in operation of the storage device, and based on an occurrence of errors, adjusting at least one of the threshold temperature or the operating temperature lowering actions. … Making adjustments based on error monitoring could also be done during operation of the data storage device, such that the temperature control is adapted to better ensure safe operation of the storage device.”, [0063]: “Errors in the operation of the hard disk drive may be continuously or periodically monitored. If errors occur or if errors occur unacceptably frequently, adjustments to the temperature control scheme may be made. Thus, the threshold temperature T.sub.th may be adjusted, or more specifically lowered.”, and [0077]: “It may be noted that although this disclosure relates to data storage devices, there may also be other electronic devices to which the disclosed temperature control may be applied.”) for the purpose of controlling an operating temperature of a data storage device (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 Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen to include the addition of the limitation of reducing the one or more protection temperatures of the electronic device to advantageously provide a better balance between cooling needs and an electronic device performance to enable a better use of the electronic device (Ab: pg. 1, par. [0007]).
Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen and Ab 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 Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen and Ab 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]).
32. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen, Ab, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0191506 A1 (hereinafter Landreth).
As per claim 3, Wu in view of Baran does not expressly teach increase the protection temperatures of the processor in response to no longer detecting the abnormal operation of the fan.
However Nguyen, in an analogous art of temperature control for a computer device (pg. 3, par. [0028] and [0029]), teaches the missing limitation of increase the protection parameters (i.e. the power limits) of the processor (pg. 6, par. [0053] and Fig. 6, element 602; i.e. the processing resource and “… monitor the die temperature and the temperature difference; and in response to the temperature difference being than the activation point, increase the power limit incrementally back to the set power limit.”) for the purpose of managing temperature for a processor (pg. 1, par. [0011] and [0014]).
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 Wu in view of Baran to include the addition of the limitation of increase the protection parameters of the processor to ensure a processor’s thermal envelope is in compliance with its specification (Nguyen: pg. 1, par. [0014]).
Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen does not expressly teach increase the protection temperatures of the processor in response to no longer detecting the abnormal operation of the fan.
However Ab, in an analogous art temperature control in electronic device (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 8, par. [0077]), teaches the missing limitation of the protection temperatures of the electronic device (pg. 2, par. [0018], pg. 3, par. [0025], pg. 7, par. [0063] and [0068] and pg. 8, par. [0077]; i.e. [0018]: “… monitoring errors in operation of the storage device, and based on an occurrence of errors, adjusting at least one of the threshold temperature or the operating temperature lowering actions. … Making adjustments based on error monitoring could also be done during operation of the data storage device, such that the temperature control is adapted to better ensure safe operation of the storage device.”, [0063]: “Errors in the operation of the hard disk drive may be continuously or periodically monitored. If errors occur or if errors occur unacceptably frequently, adjustments to the temperature control scheme may be made. Thus, the threshold temperature T.sub.th may be adjusted, or more specifically lowered.”, and [0077]: “It may be noted that although this disclosure relates to data storage devices, there may also be other electronic devices to which the disclosed temperature control may be applied.”) for the purpose of controlling an operating temperature of a data storage device (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 Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen to include the addition of the limitation of the protection temperatures of the electronic device to advantageously provide a better balance between cooling needs and an electronic device performance to enable a better use of the electronic device (Ab: pg. 1, par. [0007]).
Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen and Ab does not expressly teach increase the 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 Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen and Ab 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]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen, Ab, Anderson, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0067657 A1 (hereinafter Ranganathan).
As per claim 4, Wu in view of Baran does not expressly teach the protection temperatures of the processor are reduced by a predefined temperature offset.
However Nguyen, in an analogous art of temperature control for a computer device (pg. 3, par. [0028] and [0029]), teaches the missing limitation of the protection parameters (i.e. power limits) of the processor (pg. 6, par. [0052] and Fig. 6, element 602; i.e. the processing resource) are reduced (pg. 6, par. [0053] and Fig. 6; i.e. “… set a temperature activation point that indicates whether fan is failing to properly cool the processing resource; obtain a die temperature of one of the cores of the processing resource; determine a temperature difference between the die temperature and a throttle temperature; compare the temperature difference to an activation point; in response that the temperature difference is at most equal to the activation point, decrease the power limit …”) for the purpose of managing temperature for a processor (pg. 1, par. [0011] and [0014]).
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 Wu in view of Baran to include the addition of the limitation of the protection temperatures of the processor are reduced to ensure a processor’s thermal envelope is in compliance with its specification (Nguyen: pg. 1, par. [0014]).
Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen does not expressly teach a predefined temperature offset.
However Ab, in an analogous art temperature control in electronic device (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 8, par. [0077]), teaches the missing limitation of the reducing of the one or more protection temperatures of the electronic device (pg. 2, par. [0018], pg. 3, par. [0025], pg. 7, par. [0063] and [0068] and pg. 8, par. [0077]; i.e. [0018]: “… monitoring errors in operation of the storage device, and based on an occurrence of errors, adjusting at least one of the threshold temperature or the operating temperature lowering actions. … Making adjustments based on error monitoring could also be done during operation of the data storage device, such that the temperature control is adapted to better ensure safe operation of the storage device.”, [0063]: “Errors in the operation of the hard disk drive may be continuously or periodically monitored. If errors occur or if errors occur unacceptably frequently, adjustments to the temperature control scheme may be made. Thus, the threshold temperature T.sub.th may be adjusted, or more specifically lowered.”, and [0077]: “It may be noted that although this disclosure relates to data storage devices, there may also be other electronic devices to which the disclosed temperature control may be applied.”) for the purpose of controlling an operating temperature of a data storage device (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 Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen to include the addition of the limitation of the reducing of the one or more protection temperatures of the electronic device to advantageously provide a better balance between cooling needs and an electronic device performance to enable a better use of the electronic device (Ab: pg. 1, par. [0007]).
Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen and Ab does not expressly teach a predefined temperature offset.
Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen, Ab, and Anderson does not expressly teach a predefined temperature offset.
However Ranganathan, in an analogous art of thermal management (pg. 1, par. [0015], teaches a predefined parameter offset (pgs. 3-4, par. [0035]; i.e. “The power management agent 210 may also determine when the throttling of the compute nodes 120 is triggered, such as, when either or both of a power threshold and a temperature threshold is exceeded. … the power management agent 210 may control the throttling of the compute nodes 120 such that their power states are varied in at least one of an incremental and a non-incremental manner.) for the purpose of controlling temperature in computer systems (pgs. 3-4, par. [0035]).
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 Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen, Ab, and Anderson to include the addition of the limitation of a predefined parameter offset to advantageously minimize costs associated with powering and cooling computer systems (Ranganathan: pg. 1, par. [0004]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen, Ab, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0154415 A1 (hereinafter Zeighami).
As per claim 10, Wu in view of Baran does not expressly teach the notification includes one or more reduced protection temperatures for the processor.
However Nguyen, in an analogous art of temperature control for a computer device (pg. 3, par. [0028] and [0029]), teaches the missing limitation of the one or more reduced protection parameters (i.e. power limits) for the processor (pg. 6, par. [0052] and Fig. 6, element 602; i.e. a processing resource) in response to detecting abnormal operation of a fan (pg. 6, par. [0053] and Fig. 6; i.e. “… set a temperature activation point that indicates whether fan is failing to properly cool the processing resource; obtain a die temperature of one of the cores of the processing resource; determine a temperature difference between the die temperature and a throttle temperature; compare the temperature difference to an activation point; in response that the temperature difference is at most equal to the activation point, decrease the power limit …”) for the purpose of managing temperature for a processor (pg. 1, par. [0011] and [0014]).
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 Wu to include the addition of the limitation of the one or more reduced protection parameters for the processor in response to detecting abnormal operation of a fan to ensure a processor’s thermal envelope is in compliance with its specification (Nguyen: pg. 1, par. [0014]).
Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen does not expressly teach the notification includes one or more reduced protection temperatures for the processor.
However Ab, in an analogous art temperature control in electronic device (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 8, par. [0077]), teaches the missing limitation of the reducing of the one or more protection temperatures of the electronic device (pg. 2, par. [0018], pg. 3, par. [0025], pg. 7, par. [0063] and [0068] and pg. 8, par. [0077]; i.e. [0018]: “… monitoring errors in operation of the storage device, and based on an occurrence of errors, adjusting at least one of the threshold temperature or the operating temperature lowering actions. … Making adjustments based on error monitoring could also be done during operation of the data storage device, such that the temperature control is adapted to better ensure safe operation of the storage device.”, [0063]: “Errors in the operation of the hard disk drive may be continuously or periodically monitored. If errors occur or if errors occur unacceptably frequently, adjustments to the temperature control scheme may be made. Thus, the threshold temperature T.sub.th may be adjusted, or more specifically lowered.”, and [0077]: “It may be noted that although this disclosure relates to data storage devices, there may also be other electronic devices to which the disclosed temperature control may be applied.”) for the purpose of controlling an operating temperature of a data storage device (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 Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen to include the addition of the limitation of the reducing of the one or more protection temperatures of the electronic device to advantageously provide a better balance between cooling needs and an electronic device performance to enable a better use of the electronic device (Ab: pg. 1, par. [0007]).
Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen and Ab 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 Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen and Ab 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]).
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen and Ab.
As per claim 11, Wu substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Wu teaches the limitations of a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium, the computer readable medium comprising instructions executable by a processor (pg. 2, par. [0020], [0021, and [0023] and Fig. 1, element 23; i.e. [0020]: “The controller 24 is electrically connected to a fan 21, a temperature sensor 22 and a processor 23. The controller 24 loads a computer program and executes it to carry out the protection method for use in fan malfunctions.”, [0021]: “… a protection method for use in fan malfunctions according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. The protection method comprises the steps of: determining whether the fan's rotation speed is greater than or equal to the predetermined upper rotation speed limit (step S101); 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 greater than or equal to the predetermined upper rotation speed limit (step S103); and determining that the fan of the electronic device malfunctions …”, and [0023]: “… achieved by transferring data stored in built-in memory of the electronic device to a hard disk drive or nonvolatile memory of the electronic device and transferring, as soon as the electronic device boots again, the data from the hard disk drive or nonvolatile memory to the built-in memory so as to restore the initial operating state of the electronic device.”) to:
detect abnormal operation of a fan (pgs. 1-2, par. [0018] and [0019]; i.e. [0019]: “The fan 11 is provided in the number of one or more to reduce the temperature of the electronic device 10.”) coupled to the processor (pgs. 1-2, par. [0019] and Fig. 1, element 13; i.e. “In an embodiment, the processor 13 is electrically connected to the fan 11 and temperature sensor 12.”) in response to a speed of the fan satisfying one or more conditions (pg. 2, par. [0020] and [0021]; i.e. [0020]: “The controller 24 is electrically connected to a fan 21, a temperature sensor 22 and a processor 23. The controller 24 loads a computer program and executes it to carry out the protection method for use in fan malfunctions.” and [0021]: “… a protection method for use in fan malfunctions according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. The protection method comprises the steps of: determining whether the fan's rotation speed is greater than or equal to the predetermined upper rotation speed limit (step S101); 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 greater than or equal to the predetermined upper rotation speed limit (step S103); and determining that the fan of the electronic device malfunctions …”).
Wu does not expressly teach receive, by the processor, one or more signals from a fan indicating a speed of the fan; and
in response to the detecting of the abnormal operation of the fan, reduce one or more protection temperatures of the processor.
However Baran, in an analogous art of monitoring an operational status of a fan (pg. 5, par. [0043]), teaches the missing limitation of receive, by a processor (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.”), one or more signals from a fan indicating a speed of the fan (pg. 6, par. [0049]; i.e. “… 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.”) for the purpose of monitoring fan speed (pg. 6, par. [0049])
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 Wu to include the addition of the limitation of receive, by a processor, one or more signals from a fan indicating a speed of the fan to advantageously optimize a fan’s operation in an event a fan’s failure or degrade in performance, as well as, maximize a life of an electronics controller module (Baran: pg. 1, par. [0003], [0005], and [0006]).
Wu in view of Baran does not expressly teach in response to the detecting of the abnormal operation of the fan, reduce one or more protection temperatures of the processor.
However Nguyen, in an analogous art of temperature control for a computer device (pg. 3, par. [0028] and [0029]), teaches the missing limitation of in response to detecting an abnormal operation of a fan (pg. 6, par. [0053] and Fig. 6; i.e. “… set a temperature activation point that indicates whether fan is failing to properly cool the processing resource; obtain a die temperature of one of the cores of the processing resource; determine a temperature difference between the die temperature and a throttle temperature; compare the temperature difference to an activation point; in response that the temperature difference is at most equal to the activation point, decrease the power limit …”), reduce one or more protection parameters (i.e. power limits) of a processor (pg. 6, par. [0052] and Fig. 6, element 602; i.e. a processing resource) for the purpose of managing temperature for a processor (pg. 1, par. [0011] and [0014]).
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 Wu in view of Baran to include the addition of the limitation of in response to detecting an abnormal operation of a fan, reduce one or more protection parameters of a processor to ensure a processor’s thermal envelope is in compliance with its specification (Nguyen: pg. 1, par. [0014]).
Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen does not expressly teach reduce one or more protection temperatures of the processor.
However Ab, in an analogous art temperature control in electronic device (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 8, par. [0077]), teaches the missing limitation of reduce one or more protection temperatures of an electronic device (pg. 2, par. [0018], pg. 3, par. [0025], pg. 7, par. [0063] and [0068] and pg. 8, par. [0077]; i.e. [0018]: “… monitoring errors in operation of the storage device, and based on an occurrence of errors, adjusting at least one of the threshold temperature or the operating temperature lowering actions. … Making adjustments based on error monitoring could also be done during operation of the data storage device, such that the temperature control is adapted to better ensure safe operation of the storage device.”, [0063]: “Errors in the operation of the hard disk drive may be continuously or periodically monitored. If errors occur or if errors occur unacceptably frequently, adjustments to the temperature control scheme may be made. Thus, the threshold temperature T.sub.th may be adjusted, or more specifically lowered.”, and [0077]: “It may be noted that although this disclosure relates to data storage devices, there may also be other electronic devices to which the disclosed temperature control may be applied.”) for the purpose of controlling an operating temperature of a data storage device (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 Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen to include the addition of the limitation of reduce one or more protection temperatures of an electronic device to advantageously provide a better balance between cooling needs and an electronic device performance to enable a better use of the electronic device (Ab: pg. 1, par. [0007]).
As per claim 15, Wu substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Wu teaches the limitations of a method comprising:
detecting, by a processor (pg. 2, par. [0020], [0021, and [0023] and Fig. 1, element 23; i.e. [0020]: “The controller 24 is electrically connected to a fan 21, a temperature sensor 22 and a processor 23. The controller 24 loads a computer program and executes it to carry out the protection method for use in fan malfunctions.”, [0021]: “… a protection method for use in fan malfunctions according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. The protection method comprises the steps of: determining whether the fan's rotation speed is greater than or equal to the predetermined upper rotation speed limit (step S101); 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 greater than or equal to the predetermined upper rotation speed limit (step S103); and determining that the fan of the electronic device malfunctions …”, and [0023]: “… achieved by transferring data stored in built-in memory of the electronic device to a hard disk drive or nonvolatile memory of the electronic device and transferring, as soon as the electronic device boots again, the data from the hard disk drive or nonvolatile memory to the built-in memory so as to restore the initial operating state of the electronic device.”), a speed at which a fan (pgs. 1-2, par. [0018] and [0019]; i.e. [0019]: “The fan 11 is provided in the number of one or more to reduce the temperature of the electronic device 10.”) rotates (pg. 2, par. [0021]; i.e. “… a protection method for use in fan malfunctions according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. The protection method comprises the steps of: determining whether the fan's rotation speed is greater than or equal to the predetermined upper rotation speed limit (step S101) …”), the fan coupled to the processor (pgs. 1-2, par. [0019] and Fig. 1, element 13; i.e. “In an embodiment, the processor 13 is electrically connected to the fan 11 and temperature sensor 12.”); and
detecting abnormal operation of the fan in response to the speed at which the fan rotates satisfying one or more conditions (pg. 2, par. [0020] and [0021]; i.e. [0020]: “The controller 24 is electrically connected to a fan 21, a temperature sensor 22 and a processor 23. The controller 24 loads a computer program and executes it to carry out the protection method for use in fan malfunctions.” and [0021]: “… a protection method for use in fan malfunctions according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. The protection method comprises the steps of: determining whether the fan's rotation speed is greater than or equal to the predetermined upper rotation speed limit (step S101); 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 greater than or equal to the predetermined upper rotation speed limit (step S103); and determining that the fan of the electronic device malfunctions …”).
Wu does not expressly teach receiving one or more signals from the fan indicating the speed at which the fan rotates; and
reducing, by the processor in response to the detecting of the abnormal operation of the fan, one or more protection temperatures of the processor.
However Baran, in an analogous art of monitoring an operational status of a fan (pg. 5, par. [0043]), teaches the missing limitation of receiving one or more signals from a fan indicating a speed of at which the fan (pg. 6, par. [0049]; i.e. “… 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.”) for the purpose of monitoring fan speed (pg. 6, par. [0049])
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 Wu to include the addition of the limitation of receiving one or more signals from a fan indicating a speed of at which the fan to advantageously optimize a fan’s operation in an event a fan’s failure or degrade in performance, as well as, maximize a life of an electronics controller module (Baran: pg. 1, par. [0003], [0005], and [0006]).
Wu in view of Baran does not expressly teach reducing, by the processor in response to the detecting of the abnormal operation of the fan, one or more protection temperatures of the processor.
However Nguyen, in an analogous art of temperature control for a computer device (pg. 3, par. [0028] and [0029]), teaches the missing limitation of reduce, in response to detecting an abnormal operation of a fan (pg. 6, par. [0053] and Fig. 6; i.e. “… set a temperature activation point that indicates whether fan is failing to properly cool the processing resource; obtain a die temperature of one of the cores of the processing resource; determine a temperature difference between the die temperature and a throttle temperature; compare the temperature difference to an activation point; in response that the temperature difference is at most equal to the activation point, decrease the power limit …”), one or more protection parameters (i.e. power limits) of a processor (pg. 6, par. [0052] and Fig. 6, element 602; i.e. a processing resource) for the purpose of managing temperature for a processor (pg. 1, par. [0011] and [0014]).
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 Wu in view of Baran to include the addition of the limitation of reduce, in response to detecting an abnormal operation of a fan, one or more protection parameters of a processor to ensure a processor’s thermal envelope is in compliance with its specification (Nguyen: pg. 1, par. [0014]).
Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen does not expressly teach reducing one or more protection temperatures of the processor.
However Ab, in an analogous art temperature control in electronic device (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 8, par. [0077]), teaches the missing limitation of reducing one or more protection temperatures of an electronic device (pg. 2, par. [0018], pg. 3, par. [0025], pg. 7, par. [0063] and [0068] and pg. 8, par. [0077]; i.e. [0018]: “… monitoring errors in operation of the storage device, and based on an occurrence of errors, adjusting at least one of the threshold temperature or the operating temperature lowering actions. … Making adjustments based on error monitoring could also be done during operation of the data storage device, such that the temperature control is adapted to better ensure safe operation of the storage device.”, [0063]: “Errors in the operation of the hard disk drive may be continuously or periodically monitored. If errors occur or if errors occur unacceptably frequently, adjustments to the temperature control scheme may be made. Thus, the threshold temperature T.sub.th may be adjusted, or more specifically lowered.”, and [0077]: “It may be noted that although this disclosure relates to data storage devices, there may also be other electronic devices to which the disclosed temperature control may be applied.”) for the purpose of controlling an operating temperature of a data storage device (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 Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen to include the addition of the limitation of reducing one or more protection temperatures of an electronic device to advantageously provide a better balance between cooling needs and an electronic device performance to enable a better use of the electronic device (Ab: pg. 1, par. [0007]).
Claims 12, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen, Ab, and Anderson.
As per claim 12, Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen does not expressly teach reducing the one or more protection temperatures of the processor maintains a temperature of the processor below a touch-temperature limit.
However Ab, in an analogous art temperature control in electronic device (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 8, par. [0077]), teaches the missing limitation of reducing the one or more protection temperatures of the electronic device (pg. 2, par. [0018], pg. 3, par. [0025], pg. 7, par. [0063] and [0068] and pg. 8, par. [0077]; i.e. [0018]: “… monitoring errors in operation of the storage device, and based on an occurrence of errors, adjusting at least one of the threshold temperature or the operating temperature lowering actions. … Making adjustments based on error monitoring could also be done during operation of the data storage device, such that the temperature control is adapted to better ensure safe operation of the storage device.”, [0063]: “Errors in the operation of the hard disk drive may be continuously or periodically monitored. If errors occur or if errors occur unacceptably frequently, adjustments to the temperature control scheme may be made. Thus, the threshold temperature T.sub.th may be adjusted, or more specifically lowered.”, and [0077]: “It may be noted that although this disclosure relates to data storage devices, there may also be other electronic devices to which the disclosed temperature control may be applied.”) for the purpose of controlling an operating temperature of a data storage device (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 Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen to include the addition of the limitation of reducing the one or more protection temperatures of the electronic device to advantageously provide a better balance between cooling needs and an electronic device performance to enable a better use of the electronic device (Ab: pg. 1, par. [0007]).
Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen and Ab 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 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 Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen and Ab 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, Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen does not expressly teach reducing the one or more protection temperatures of the processor maintains a temperature of the device below a touch-temperature limit.
However Ab, in an analogous art temperature control in electronic device (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 8, par. [0077]), teaches the missing limitation of reducing the one or more protection temperatures of the electronic device (pg. 2, par. [0018], pg. 3, par. [0025], pg. 7, par. [0063] and [0068] and pg. 8, par. [0077]; i.e. [0018]: “… monitoring errors in operation of the storage device, and based on an occurrence of errors, adjusting at least one of the threshold temperature or the operating temperature lowering actions. … Making adjustments based on error monitoring could also be done during operation of the data storage device, such that the temperature control is adapted to better ensure safe operation of the storage device.”, [0063]: “Errors in the operation of the hard disk drive may be continuously or periodically monitored. If errors occur or if errors occur unacceptably frequently, adjustments to the temperature control scheme may be made. Thus, the threshold temperature T.sub.th may be adjusted, or more specifically lowered.”, and [0077]: “It may be noted that although this disclosure relates to data storage devices, there may also be other electronic devices to which the disclosed temperature control may be applied.”) for the purpose of controlling an operating temperature of a data storage device (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 Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen to include the addition of the limitation of reducing the one or more protection temperatures of the electronic device to advantageously provide a better balance between cooling needs and an electronic device performance to enable a better use of the electronic device (Ab: pg. 1, par. [0007]).
Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen and Ab 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 Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen and Ab 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 18, Wu teaches 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 (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) …”.
As per claim 20, Wu teaches transmitting a notification to a display device for presentation to a user, the notification indicating the abnormal operation of the fan was detected (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.”).
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen, Ab, and Landreth.
As per claim 13, Wu in view of Baran does not expressly teach increase the protection temperatures of the processor in response to no longer detecting the abnormal operation of the fan.
However Nguyen, in an analogous art of temperature control for a computer device (pg. 3, par. [0028] and [0029]), teaches the missing limitation of increase the protection parameters (i.e. the power limits) of the processor (pg. 6, par. [0053] and Fig. 6, element 602; i.e. the processing resource and “… monitor the die temperature and the temperature difference; and in response to the temperature difference being than the activation point, increase the power limit incrementally back to the set power limit.”) for the purpose of managing temperature for a processor (pg. 1, par. [0011] and [0014]).
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 Wu to include the addition of the limitation of increase the protection parameters of the processor to ensure a processor’s thermal envelope is in compliance with its specification (Nguyen: pg. 1, par. [0014]).
Wu in view of Nguyen does not expressly teach increase the protection temperatures of the processor in response to no longer detecting abnormal operation of the fan.
However Ab, in an analogous art temperature control in electronic device (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 8, par. [0077]), teaches the missing limitation of the protection temperatures of the electronic device (pg. 2, par. [0018], pg. 3, par. [0025], pg. 7, par. [0063] and [0068] and pg. 8, par. [0077]; i.e. [0018]: “… monitoring errors in operation of the storage device, and based on an occurrence of errors, adjusting at least one of the threshold temperature or the operating temperature lowering actions. … Making adjustments based on error monitoring could also be done during operation of the data storage device, such that the temperature control is adapted to better ensure safe operation of the storage device.”, [0063]: “Errors in the operation of the hard disk drive may be continuously or periodically monitored. If errors occur or if errors occur unacceptably frequently, adjustments to the temperature control scheme may be made. Thus, the threshold temperature T.sub.th may be adjusted, or more specifically lowered.”, and [0077]: “It may be noted that although this disclosure relates to data storage devices, there may also be other electronic devices to which the disclosed temperature control may be applied.”) for the purpose of controlling an operating temperature of a data storage device (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 Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen to include the addition of the limitation of the protection temperatures of the electronic device to advantageously provide a better balance between cooling needs and an electronic device performance to enable a better use of the electronic device (Ab: pg. 1, par. [0007]).
Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen and Ab does not expressly teach increase the 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 Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen and Ab 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, Wu in view of Baran does not expressly teach increasing the protection temperatures of the processor in response to no longer detecting the abnormal operation of the fan.
However Nguyen, in an analogous art of temperature control for a computer device (pg. 3, par. [0028] and [0029]), teaches the missing limitation of increasing the protection parameters (i.e. the power limits) of the processor (pg. 6, par. [0053] and Fig. 6, element 602; i.e. the processing resource and “… monitor the die temperature and the temperature difference; and in response to the temperature difference being than the activation point, increase the power limit incrementally back to the set power limit.”) for the purpose of managing temperature for a processor (pg. 1, par. [0011] and [0014]).
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 Wu in view of Baran to include the addition of the limitation of increasing the protection parameters of the processor to ensure a processor’s thermal envelope is in compliance with its specification (Nguyen: pg. 1, par. [0014]).
Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen does not expressly teach increasing the protection temperatures of the processor in response to no longer detecting the abnormal operation of the fan.
However Ab, in an analogous art temperature control in electronic device (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 8, par. [0077]), teaches the missing limitation of the protection temperatures of the electronic device (pg. 2, par. [0018], pg. 3, par. [0025], pg. 7, par. [0063] and [0068] and pg. 8, par. [0077]; i.e. [0018]: “… monitoring errors in operation of the storage device, and based on an occurrence of errors, adjusting at least one of the threshold temperature or the operating temperature lowering actions. … Making adjustments based on error monitoring could also be done during operation of the data storage device, such that the temperature control is adapted to better ensure safe operation of the storage device.”, [0063]: “Errors in the operation of the hard disk drive may be continuously or periodically monitored. If errors occur or if errors occur unacceptably frequently, adjustments to the temperature control scheme may be made. Thus, the threshold temperature T.sub.th may be adjusted, or more specifically lowered.”, and [0077]: “It may be noted that although this disclosure relates to data storage devices, there may also be other electronic devices to which the disclosed temperature control may be applied.”) for the purpose of controlling an operating temperature of a data storage device (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 Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen to include the addition of the limitation of the protection temperatures of the electronic device to advantageously provide a better balance between cooling needs and an electronic device performance to enable a better use of the electronic device (Ab: pg. 1, par. [0007]).
Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen and Ab does not expressly teach increasing the 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 Wu in view of Baran in further view of Nguyen and Ab 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]).
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. 2002/0152406 A1 discloses a computer comprises a central processing unit, at least one fan disposed for providing cooling to the at least one central processing unit, and a thermal manager.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0061756 A1 discloses a system for cooling electronic equipment includes one or more electronic equipment enclosures that receive cool air from one or more cool air sources and return warmed air utilizing a plurality of fan assemblies.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0251733 A1 discloses a system comprises a first proximity sensor adapted to detect a human and logic coupled to a first proximity sensor. The logic adjusts a temperature threshold based on whether a human has been detected.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0269323 A1 discloses an information handling system determining whether a fan in the information handling system is blocked by determining whether a value in the information handling systems meets or crosses a threshold based on a target value in the information handling system.
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