DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 19, on lines 7-8, the claim refers to “a lowest fan speed offset”. Claim 18, from which claim 19 depends, also refers to “a lowest fan speed offset”. It is unclear if both claim 19 refers to the same “lowest fan speed offset” or if they are different offsets.
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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabuchi PGPUB 2018/0279513 in view of Sethi et al [Sethi] PGPUB 2021/0397239.
Referring to claim 16, Tabuchi teaches the data storage device, comprising:
one or more components comprising at least one non-volatile memory (NVM) [120 Fig.6, 0007, 0031].
at least one component temperature sensor configured to detect one or more component temperatures of the one or more components [0052, 0060].
one or more fans configured to reduce the one or more component temperatures of the one or more components [206 Fig. 6, 0063].
a processor coupled to the one or more components, the at least one component temperature sensor, and the one or more fans [50 Fig. 6, 0029, 0060, 0063], the processor configured to:
determine a current temperature of a first component of the one or more components using the at least one component temperature sensor [0060].
operate at least one fan of the one or more fans corresponding to the first component based on at least one of:
a comparison between the current temperature of the first component and a warning temperature of the first component [0062-0063].
In summary, Tabuchi teaches a storage apparatus that includes a plurality of non-volatile storage devices such as HDDs. The storage apparatus further monitors the temperature of each HDD in the storage apparatus via internal HDD sensors via expander (i.e., interpreted as a processor). If the expander determines that an HDD temperature exceeds a threshold (herein interpreted as a warning temperature but could alternatively be interpreted as a critical temperature), the expander signals to a corresponding fan to start rotating to cool the HDD.
While Tabuchi teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to further determine a priority of one of the plurality of HDDs. Sethi teaches determining priority of components in order to determine how to provide available power [0022]. It is further taught that the components can include storage arrays and NAS devices [0030, 0062]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Sethi into the Tabuchi device because doing so would allow for optimal control in the events of power fluctuations as taught by Sethi [0022]. It should be further noted that Sethi also teaches adjusting fan speeds and thermal profiles of components that are not operational. Because fans are controlled based on priority as taught in Tabuchi, and fan speed is controlled by via expander, it would have been obvious in the Tabuchi-Sethi combination to have the expander determine the priorities of the HDDs so that it can control the fan speed according to their priorities.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are allowed.
Claims 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
PGPUB 2023/0345665 to Tsuchida teaches a fan offset value (or high offset value) which limits the speed to a minimum output value while also controlling the rotation speed based on temperature [0025, 0032-0033].
PGPUB 2022/0404882 to Wanjale teaches applying a fan speed setpoint offset when a fan speed error is computed [0047].
PGPUB 2013/0132769 to Kulkarni teaches applying priorities to virtual drives [0063].
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest either individually or in combination, setting/assigning an offset value based on a priority of a component (claims 1, 9, 17), or increasing a fan speed according to a lowest fan speed offset when an absolute value of a difference between a current temperature and warning temperature is less than or equal to a first preselected tolerance value (claim 18).
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A CONNOLLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. 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.
/MARK A CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 3/4/26