DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-9 are pending in this Application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims 1-4, 7-9 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a monitoring unit configured to monitor respective temperatures… and a determination unit configured to determine an abnormality…”, in claim 1;
“the determination unit…” in claims 2-4 and 7-8;
“monitoring device that monitors temperature ”, in claim 9;
For purposes of Examination and interpretation in the broadest reasonable interpretation , these “units” such as the monitoring unit, the determination unit and the monitoring device will be interpreted as computer implemented functions implemented in a central processing unit (CPU) and memory (see [0042] “ the alarm determination unit 12 can be implemented by a central processing unit (CPU) 10A and a memory 10B storing a program according to a flowchart described later. The memory 10B includes, for example, a random access memory (RAM) and a read only memory (ROM). When the CPU 10A reads and executes the program, the CPU 10A implements the temperature monitoring unit 12A and the abnormality determination unit 12B).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
The claim(s) 1 and 9, recite in part, “monitoring respective temperatures of an air-cooling target component and water-cooling target components measured by temperature sensors and to determine an abnormality in any one of cooling mechanisms provided in the water-cooling target components, respectively, based on a temperature relationship among the respective temperatures”.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps of monitoring/observation/collecting data, evaluation and judgment which are steps that can be easily performed mentally but for the recitation of generic components. The claims recites the collection of data and comparing the data with another set of data (table) and decide or judge that there exists an abnormality in a device such as a cooling mechanism. That is other than reciting “units” in claim 1 or devices in claim 9 nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. These units or devices have been interpreted in the BRI in light of the disclosure as a generic CPU with memory to execute the steps/algorithm of the recited functions. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer processor/unit/device does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements units or devices in claim 1 and 9 respectively, when interpreted in the BRI refers to generic CPU which is recited in high level of generality and represents no more than instructions “to apply” the abstract idea on a computer or to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer which cannot provide an inventive concept as stated by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). The Claims also recite that the temperature of the monitored devices are target components which are heat radiating electronic components which are air cooled and water cooled, and which are recited at high level of generality and represents no more than instructions to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of monitoring temperature of heat radiating components which cannot provide an inventive concept as stated by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h)). Claim 9 further recites “a monitored device that is monitored by the monitoring device and includes the air-cooling target component, the water-cooling target components, the cooling mechanisms, the temperature sensors, a water-cooling pump that supplies a coolant to the cooling mechanism, and an air-cooling fan that cools the air-cooling target component” recited at high level of generality represents no more than instructions to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a component enclosing generic components used as the location for gathering the data used in the abstract idea, which cannot provide an inventive concept as stated by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h)). Claims 1 and 9 further recite monitoring temperatures which refers to the collection of data to be used in the abstract idea and which is recited in a high level of generality and is considered insignificant extra solution and pre-solution activities of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional element in the claim are recited a high level of generality and simply represents no more than instructions “to apply” the abstract idea on a computer or to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of heat radiating electronic components which cannot provide an inventive concept as stated by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h)). Claims 1 and 9 further recite monitoring temperatures which refers to the collection of data to be used in the abstract idea and which is recited in a high level of generality and is considered insignificant extra solution and pre-solution activities of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8 depend from claim, and thus recite or inherit the limitations and the abstract ideas of their respective parent claim.
Claim 2, further recites “…determines that a coolant supplied to the cooling mechanisms has decreased when a temperature of the air-cooling target component is normal and temperatures of the water-cooling target components are all abnormal”. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps of evaluation and judgment which are steps that can be easily performed mentally. The claims recites the collection of data and comparing the data with another set of data (table) and decide or judge that there exists an abnormality in a device such as a decrease in cooling coolant based on the comparison/evaluation. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Claim 3, “wherein when a temperature of the air-cooling target component is normal, temperatures of one or some of the water-cooling target components are normal, and a temperature of a remaining water-cooling target component of the water-cooling target components is abnormal, the determination unit determines that a cooling mechanism provided in the remaining water-cooling target component has failed”. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps of evaluation and judgment which are steps that can be easily performed mentally. The claims recites the collection of data and comparing the data with another set of data (table) and decide or judge that there exists an abnormality in a device such as a cooling mechanism. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Claim 4, further recites “wherein when a temperature of the air-cooling target component is abnormal and temperatures of the water-cooling target components are all abnormal, the determination unit determines that a temperature of a component environment including the air-cooling target component and the water-cooling target components is abnormal”. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps of evaluation and judgment which are steps that can be easily performed mentally. The claims recites the collection of data and comparing the data with another set of data (table) and decide or judge that there exists in a temperature of a component environment. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Claim 5, further recites the additional limitations of “wherein each of the cooling mechanisms is a plate that is in close contact with a corresponding one of the water-cooling target components and exchanges heat of the corresponding one of the water-cooling target components and heat of a coolant supplied to the cooling mechanisms”, recited at high level of generality simply represents no more than instructions to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of heat radiating electronic components which cannot provide an inventive concept as stated by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 6, further recites the additional limitations “wherein the air-cooling target component, the water-cooling target components, the cooling mechanisms, the temperature sensors, a water-cooling pump configured to supply a coolant to the cooling mechanisms, and an air-cooling fan configured to cool the air-cooling target component are provided in a monitored device that is monitored by the monitoring device” are recited at high level of generality and represents no more than instructions to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a component enclosing generic components used as the location for gathering the data used in the abstract idea, which cannot provide an inventive concept as stated by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 7, further recites the additional limitations of “…determines the abnormality based on a rotation speed of an air-cooling fan that cools the air-cooling target component and the temperature relationship among the respective temperatures”. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps of evaluation and judgment which are steps that can be easily performed mentally. The claims recites the collection of data such as speed and temperature and comparing the data with another set of data (table) and decide or judge that there exists an abnormality in a device such as a cooling mechanism. Also, the additional of using speed and temperature which is recited in a high level of generality and is considered insignificant extra solution and pre-solution activities of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 8, further recites the additional limitation of “…estimates that the respective temperatures are normal temperatures when the rotation speed has not reached an upper limit of the rotation speed”. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps of evaluation and judgment which are steps that can be easily performed mentally. The claims recites the collection of data such as speed and temperature and compares the data to make a judgment or opinion, which are steps that can be easily performed in the mind by looking at data. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiko (JP 07-146188 cited in the IDS in view of Cader et al (US 20170231118).
As per claim 1, Kazuhiko teaches a monitoring device (see page 4 claim 1 “A temperature abnormality detecting apparatus for a multi-chip module…”; also, see [0004]; also, see Fig. 1 and 2 monitoring device ) comprising:
a monitoring unit configured to monitor respective temperatures of (air cooling target components has been interpreted as air cooled target components and water-cooling target components as water cooled target components in light of the disclosure. see Kazuhiko Fig. 1 a plurality of target components 3 comprise a temperature sensor 6, see [0008] “…Each integrated circuit element 3 incorporates a temperature measuring diode 6, and its anode and cathode are connected to the input/ output terminal 5 through conductive wiring in the wiring substrate 3. The measuring circuit 7 selects an arbitrary one from a plurality of integrated circuit elements 3 and includes a built-in diode 6 and a measuring circuit 7….”; also, see Fig. 3 water cooled target components 3 are measured, see [0013-0014] “Heat generated in the integrated circuit element 3 is transferred through the thermally conductive compound 36 to the cooling plate 36 and is released into the coolant. Here, water is used as the liquid refrigerant… As a case where the temperature of the integrated circuit element 3 rises in this embodiment, the following 3 cases may be considered.”; also, see [0015-0017]; thus, at least three or more target components temperatures are measured; also, see Fig. 6 and [0018-0019]); and
a determination unit configured to determine an abnormality in any one of cooling mechanisms provided in the water-cooling target components, respectively, based on a temperature relationship among the respective temperatures (see Fig. 6 and see [0018-0119] “…If there is no abnormal location, it is considered normal (step 202). If there is an abnormal location, it is determined whether an anomaly is all locations (step 203). If the whole location is abnormal, it is judged whether or not cooling water is normally flowing into the liquid cooling module 31 by some means (step 204). When cooling water is normally flowing, it is considered as a failure of the measuring circuit 7 (Step 205), and when the cooling water does not flow normally, it is regarded as an abnormality of the refrigerant supply system (Step 206). If it is determined in step 203 that all the locations are not abnormal, all of the specific row s are abnormal… If all of the rows are not abnormal, the temperature data of the abnormal location stored in the storage unit 13 is referred to several times before, for example, about 10 times before (step 209). At this time, as a cause of the temperature abnormality, for example, a cooling abnormality of the location, such as deterioration of the thermally conductive compo und 36, and a failure of the diode 6 may be considered… If this is the case, it is considered to be a cooling abnormality of the location (step 211), and if not, a diode failure of the location (step 212). According to the above procedure, the mode of abnormality of the liquid cooling module 31 is identified according to
the arrangement of locations indicating temperature abnormality”).
Kazuhiko teaches monitoring device detecting a cooling mechanism abnormality based on detecting temperature on a plurality of target component locations, but it does not explicitly teach to monitor temperature of an air-cooling target component.
Cader teaches a monitoring system comprising an air cooling system for cooling air cooling target components (see [0026] “… approximately ten to thirty percent of the components may be cooled via air cooling; however, the actual percentage may be determined based on environmental conditions. The temperature of the air delivered may be, for example, thirty degrees Celsius … , and air cooling for the balance of the components, such as hard drives, power supplies, host bus adapters, supporting power regulation for CPU, GPU, and/or DIMMs and other board related logic ASICs, i.e., the second set of components”, thus, different type or air cooled target components; also, see claim 1 “an air cooling device to provide an air to cool a second set of components”; also, see [0030]), and monitor temperature of an air-cooling target component (see [0011] “The phrase “environmental condition” refers to a measurable value in the air surrounding the electronic components…”, thus this is the temperature of near the ai cooled target components; see [0019] “The control apparatus 120 determines an air cooling temperature based on an environmental condition, such as an air temperature and a relative humidity; see [0026] “…The temperature of the air delivered may be, for example, thirty degrees Celsius…”; also, see 0035 measure air cooling temperatures; also, see [0046] “…the temperature of the data center and the electronic components are evaluated…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Kazuhiko’s invention to include an air cooling system for cooling air cooling target components and monitor temperature of an air-cooling target component as taught by Cader in order to provide air cooling to a set of components that produce less heat (see [0026] and [0030]) and to control or maintain the temperature of air cooled components and water cooled components within desired ranges based on the relation of measured temperatures of air cooled components and water cooled components (see Fig. 6-8, see [0019], [0021] [0042-0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to had used the air cooled components in the system of Kazuhiko or used the teachings of Kazuhiko in the system of Cader to determine different type of abnormalities in the air cooling mechanisms of the water cooling target components since the system of Kazuhiko simply requires at least three or more temperatures of target components to determine the fault in cooling mechanisms.
As per claim 5, Kazuhiko-Cader teaches the monitoring device according to claim 1, Kazuhiko wherein each of the cooling mechanisms is a plate that is in close contact with a corresponding one of the water-cooling target components and exchanges heat of the corresponding one of the water-cooling target components and heat of a coolant supplied to the cooling mechanisms (see [0013-0014] “Referring to FIG. 4, in a liquid cooling module 31 according to a 1 embodiment of the present invention, a liquid refrigerant enters from a refrigerant inlet 32, is ejected from a
nozzle 33, and collides with a cooling plate 35. Heat generated in the integrated circuit element 3 is transferred through the thermally conductive compound 36 to the cooling plate 36 and is released into the coolant. …”; also, see Fig. 4 cooling plate 35 and target components 3 exchange heat (cold and heat)). Cader also teaches water cooling components and cold plates (see [0021], the functions of a cold plate is to exchange cold-heat with heat radiating component).
As per claim 6, Kazuhiko-Cader teaches the monitoring device according claim 1, Kazuhiko further teaches wherein (see Fig. 4 and 6 target components 3, 51) , the cooling mechanisms (see Fig. 4,6 cold plates 35), the temperature sensors (see Fig. 4,6 sensors 53), (see monitored device of Fig. 4 and 6; also, see [0018-0019]).
Kazuhiko does not explicitly teach the air-cooling target component, a water-cooling pump configured to supply a coolant to the cooling mechanisms, and an air-cooling fan configured to cool the air-cooling target component, are provided in a monitored device.
However, Cader further teaches the air-cooling target component (see [0011], [0014], “…the air cooling device 160 to provide air to cool a second set of components of the modular data center”; [0019], [0026], [0046]), a water-cooling pump configured to supply a coolant to the cooling mechanisms (see [0021] plates and see 0030 …For example, the set of fluid cooling components may include a pump…”), and an air-cooling fan configured to cool the air-cooling target component (see [0030] “The set of air cooling components may include a heat exchanger, a fan, a heat sink, and/or a sensor”), are provided in a monitored device (see Fig. 2 monitored device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Kazuhiko’s invention to include the air-cooling target component, a water-cooling pump configured to supply a coolant to the cooling mechanisms, and an air-cooling fan configured to cool the air-cooling target component, are provided in a monitored device as taught by Cader in order to allow the pump to actively circulate the water/fluid in the system plates to reduce heat/temperatures (see 0030, 0045), allow the fan to run to reduce/remove heat/temperatures form the components (0025, 0030), and provide all of the components in/within the monitored device to avoid contaminants and hazards that could damage the components or the system
As per claim 9, Kazuhiko teaches a cooling system comprising:
a monitoring device (see page 4 claim 1 “A temperature abnormality detecting apparatus for a multi-chip module…”; also, see [0004]; also, see Fig. 1 and 2 monitoring device) that monitors respective temperatures of anair cooling target components has been interpreted as air cooled target components and water-cooling target components as water cooled target components in light of the disclosure. see Kazuhiko Fig. 1 a plurality of target components 3 comprise a temperature sensor 6, see [0008], [0013-0014], [0015-0017]; thus, at least three or more target components temperatures are measured; also, see Fig. 6 and [0018-0019]; also, see claim 1 above same rationale applies herein ), respectively, and determines an abnormality of any one of cooling mechanisms provided in the water-cooling components, respectively, based on a temperature relationship among the respective temperatures (see Fig. 6 and see [0018-0119]; also, see claim 1 above same rationale applies herein); and
a monitored device that is monitored by the monitoring device (see monitored device of Fig. 4 and 6; also, see [0018-0019]) and includes thesee Fig. 4 and 6 target components 3, 51), the cooling mechanisms (see Fig. 4,6 cold plates 35), the temperature sensors (see Fig. 4,6 sensors 53),
Kazuhiko teaches monitoring device detecting a cooling mechanism abnormality based on detecting temperature on a plurality of target component locations, but it does not explicitly teach to monitor temperature of an air-cooling target component and does not explicitly teach the air-cooling target component, a water-cooling pump configured to supply a coolant to the cooling mechanisms, and an air-cooling fan configured to cool the air-cooling target component, are provided in a monitored device.
Cader teaches a monitoring system comprising an air cooling system for cooling air cooling target components (see [0026], [0030]), and monitor temperature of an air-cooling target component (see [0011], [0019], [0026], [0046]; also, see claim 1 above same rationale applies herein), wherein the air-cooling target component (see [0011], [0014], “…the air cooling device 160 to provide air to cool a second set of components of the modular data center”; [0019], [0026], [0046]), a water-cooling pump configured to supply a coolant to the cooling mechanisms (see [0021] plates and see 0030 …For example, the set of fluid cooling components may include a pump…”), and an air-cooling fan configured to cool the air-cooling target component (see [0030] “The set of air cooling components may include a heat exchanger, a fan, a heat sink, and/or a sensor”), are provided in a monitored device (see Fig. 2 monitored device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Kazuhiko’s invention to include an air cooling system for cooling air cooling target components and monitor temperature of an air-cooling target component as taught by Cader in order to provide air cooling to a set of components that produce less heat (see [0026] and [0030]) and to control or maintain the temperature of air cooled components and water cooled components within desired ranges based on the relation of measured temperatures of air cooled components and water cooled components (see Fig. 6-8, see [0019], [0021] [0042-0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to had used the air cooled components in the system of Kazuhiko or used the teachings of Kazuhiko in the system of Cader to determine different type of abnormalities in the air cooling mechanisms of the water cooling target components since the system of Kazuhiko simply requires at least three or more temperatures of target components to determine the fault in cooling mechanisms. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Kazuhiko’s invention to include the air-cooling target component, a water-cooling pump configured to supply a coolant to the cooling mechanisms, and an air-cooling fan configured to cool the air-cooling target component, are provided in a monitored device as taught by Cader in order to allow the pump to actively circulate the water/fluid in the system plates to reduce heat/temperatures (see 0030, 0045), allow the fan to run to reduce/remove heat/temperatures form the components (0025, 0030), and provide all of the components in/within the monitored device to avoid contaminants and hazards that could damage the components or the system.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiko (JP 07-146188 cited in the IDS in view of Cader et al (US 20170231118) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sasaki (US 20190067447).
As per claim 2, Kazuhiko-Cader teaches the monitoring device according to claim 1, Kazuhiko further teaches wherein the determination unit determines that a coolant supplied to the cooling mechanisms has decreased when a temperature of the (see [0018] “Referring to FIG. 6, when an identification is initiated (step 2 00), it is first determined whether there is an abnormal location (step 201). If there is no abnormal location, it is considered normal (step 202). If there is an abnormal location, it is determined whether an anomaly is all locations (step 203). If the whole location is abnormal, it is judged whether or not cooling water is normally flowing into the liquid cooling mod ule 31 by some means (step 204). When cooling water is normally flowing, it is considered as a failure of the measuring circuit 7 (Step 205), and when the cooling water does not flow
w normally, it is regarded as an abnormality of the refrigerant supply system (Step 206). If it is determined in step 203 that all the locations are not abnormal, all of the specific row s are abnormal).
Cader further teaches a monitoring temperature system comprising a step of determining when a temperature of the air-cooling target component is normal (see Fig. 7 step 760; see [0011] “The phrase “environmental condition” refers to a measurable value in the air surrounding the electronic components…”, thus this is the temperature of near the ai cooled target components; see [0019] “The control apparatus 120 determines an air cooling temperature based on an environmental condition, such as an air temperature and a relative humidity; see [0026] “…The temperature of the air delivered may be, for example, thirty degrees Celsius…”; also, see 0035 measure air cooling temperatures; also, see [0046] “…the temperature of the data center and the electronic components are evaluated…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Kazuhiko’s invention to include a step of determining when a temperature of the air-cooling target component is normal as taught by Cader in order to determine if air cooling temperature of the system is within normal ranges (see Fig. 7 steps 760, 770) and control the system according to the determination.
Kazuhiko-Cader does not explicitly teach detecting an abnormality including a coolant supplied to the cooling mechanisms has decreased when a temperature of the air-cooling target component is normal and temperatures of the water-cooling target components are all abnormal.
However, Sasaki teaches a monitoring system comprising detecting an abnormality including a coolant supplied to the cooling mechanisms has decreased based on temperature relationships such as when a temperature of the air-cooling target component is normal and a temperature of a water-cooling target components is abnormal (see [0004] “…a fan…” and see Fig. 6 failure of a cooling facility; also, see page 11 claim 2 “.. .failure of a cooling facility connected via a plurality of pipes and a heat exchanger to each of the plurality of information processing apparatuses”, Thus, failure of a cooling facility results or is similar to a decrease of a coolant to the pipes bringing cooling liquid to the target components; in Fig. 6 temperature sensor 1 is ON which is an abnormal condition for temperature target component 531, see [0050] and Fig. 11; Sensor 6 is OFF (normal state) for temperature related to water pipes/target components, see [0115] and Fig. 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Kazuhiko-Cader’s combination as taught above to include detecting an abnormality including a coolant supplied to the cooling mechanisms has decreased based on temperature relationships such as when a temperature of the air-cooling target component is normal and a temperature of a water-cooling target components is abnormal as taught by Sasaki in order to determine different type of abnormalities and control or stop the system when an abnormality of a liquid cooling system has occurred (see [0033]).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiko (JP 07-146188 cited in the IDS in view of Cader et al (US 20170231118) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Nishizawa (US 20130030643).
As per claim 7, Kazuhiko-Cader teaches the monitoring device according claim 1, Kazuhiko further teaches wherein the determination unit determines see Fig. 6 and see [0018-0119] “…If there is no abnormal location, it is considered normal (step 202)….; also, see claim 1 above). Kazuhiko does not explicitly teach wherein the determination unit determines the abnormality based on a rotation speed of an air-cooling fan that cools the air-cooling target component.
However, Nishizawa teaches a monitoring cooling system for determining abnormalities in the cooling system comprising a determination unit determines an abnormality based on a rotation speed of an air-cooling fan that cools a target component (see Fig. 1 fan 03 and target component 102; also, see Fig. 4 steps S11 and S12, wherein in S12 the rotational speed of a fan is used to determine an abnormality of a cooling system, see S13 and S14; also, see [0070-0071] “… In step S12, in the case where one of the abnormal operation of radiator fan 103 and the abnormal heat generation of inverter 14 has occurred, the process proceeds to step S13 in which the diagnosis that the abnormal heat dissipation or abnormal heat generation has occurred is confirmed. This result of diagnosis may be conveyed to an operator at this time or stored in a nonvolatile memory or the like and read and analyzed later in a repair shop”) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Kazuhiko-Cader’s combination as taught above to include a determination unit determines an abnormality based on a rotation speed of an air-cooling fan that cools a target component as taught by Nishizawa in order to detect an abnormality on the cooling system and alert of an operator so that he can repair the problem (see 0071).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiko (JP 07-146188 cited in the IDS in view of Cader et al (US 20170231118) and Nishizawa (US 20130030643) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Wu et al (CN 103161746) and Ishigaki (US 20240280283).
As per claim 8, Kazuhiko-Cader- Nishizawa teaches the monitoring device according to claim 7, Nishizawa teaches that the rotational speed of a fan is detected (see claim 7 above), but Kazuhiko-Cader- Nishizawa does not explicitly teach wherein the determination unit estimates that the respective temperatures are normal temperatures when the rotation speed has not reached an upper limit of the rotation speed (the algorithm of the instant application in Fig. 5 detects the rotation speed of the fan and determines that the fan is normal when the rotation is within a normal range e.g. has not reached an upper limit).
Wu teaches a system comprising a determination unit that determines the rotation speed has not reached an upper limit of the rotation speed and determines the fan is normal (See page 3 par. 5 “the judging module 442 is used for rotating speed signal with the encoded rotational speed signal, and determines whether the received rotating speed signal in a preset speed range, if the received receiving the fan control unit 42 output is within the predetermined speed range, it indicates that the speed signal corresponding to the fan 34 is in the
Normal working state. if the received rotating speed signal is not within the preset rotating speed range the speed signal indicates that the fan 34 has faults corresponding to the speed signal, the judging module 442 the coding of the speed signal sent to the control module 444”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Kazuhiko-Cader- Nishizawa’s to include a determination unit that determines the rotation speed has not reached an upper limit of the rotation speed and determines the fan is normal as taught by Wu in order to determine that the fan is working in a normal state and continue monitoring the system (see page 3 par. 5 and see page 4 steps S2 par. 2 “…S2, the judging module 442 judges whether the speed signal in the preset rotating speed range, if the speed signal in the preset rotating speed range, returning to the step S1, if…).
However, Kazuhiko-Cader- Nishizawa-Wu still does not explicitly teach the determination unit estimates that the respective temperatures are normal when the rotation speed is normal/has not reached a limit thresholds (according to Fig. 5, the system detects that the rotational speed is normal and does not perform any control because it assumes/estimates that the system is within normal operation thus, normal temperatures).
Ishigaki teaches a monitoring system for abnormality detection comprising a determination unit estimates that the respective system is normal when the rotation speed of a fan is normal/has not reached an upper limit of the rotation speed (see [0072] when the rotation speed is abnormal several abnormalities of the cooling system are detected/inferred; also, see Fig. 9 when the rotation speed of a fan is normal, the system infers/estimates that the system as whole is normal, see step S113 in Fig. 9, also, see [0074] “For example, when the actual value of at least one of the …the rotation speed of outdoor fan 14 is not included within the normal range, inference unit 120 determines that the state of air conditioning system 40 is abnormal. When the state of air conditioning system 40 is abnormal (YES in S113), …When the state of air conditioning system 40 is normal (NO in S113), inference unit 120 ends the process.”, thus, when the rotation speed of fn is normal the whole system is deemed in normal conditions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Kazuhiko-Cader- Nishizawa-Wu’s combination as taught above to include a determination unit estimates that the respective system is normal including temperatures of components within the system when the rotation speed of a fan is normal/has not reached an upper limit of the rotation speed as taught by Ishigaki in order to end an inference process without transmitting any abnormality notice (see [0074]).
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
Provided that the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 USC 101 are overcome, claims 3-4 would be allowable since not prior art has been found that teaches or suggest the combination of limitations recited in claims 3-4. It is to note that only adding claims 3 or 4 into claim 1 would not overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101.
The following is an examiner's statement of indication of allowable subject matter: None of the references cited in the IDS or below, alone or in combination, explicitly teach the combination of limitations when combined with the other claimed limitations of claims 3 and 4 including:
Claim 3, “wherein when a temperature of the air-cooling target component is normal, temperatures of one or some of the water-cooling target components are normal, and a temperature of a remaining water-cooling target component of the water-cooling target components is abnormal, the determination unit determines that a cooling mechanism provided in the remaining water-cooling target component has failed”.
Claim 4, “wherein when a temperature of the air-cooling target component is abnormal and temperatures of the water-cooling target components are all abnormal, the determination unit determines that a temperature of a component environment including the air-cooling target component and the water-cooling target components is abnormal”.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, as cited in PTO form 892, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Watanabe et al (US 8564951) teaches an apparatus enclosing temperature sensors, an air-cooling target component (see col 6 lines 41-55), water-cooling target components (see col 9 line 56 to Col 10 line 5), a cooling mechanisms (see col 9 line 56 to Col 10 line 5), temperature sensors, a water-cooling pump configured to supply a coolant to the cooling mechanisms (pumps 14), and an air-cooling fan (fans 5 fig. 2A) configured to cool the air-cooling target component are provided in a monitored device that is monitored by the monitoring device (see Fig. 2, 10, 12, 17).
Campbell et al (US 20140068943) teaches an ai cooling system and water cooling system for cooling a plurality of components (see 0002, 0030, and 0032).
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid or differentiate from such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLVIN LOPEZ ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7686 and fax (571) 270-8686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.
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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/O. L./
Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ALICIA M. CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117