DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Applicant’s amendment, filed 06/17/2026, for application number 18/295,729 has been received and entered into record. Claims 1, 4, 12 and 18 are amended. Thus, claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, 4-10, 12, 13, 15, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovicott et al. (US 2016/0239067 A1) in view of North et al. (US 2021/0068302 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lovicott teaches a method comprising:
determining, by a processor, a fan speed value based on aggregation of a first fan speed value and a second fan speed value (“fan speeds are included in power parameter LUT 510 FIG. 5B), the fan speeds may be summed according to the inventory of components…By summing the totals together (e.g., summing 36%, 8%, 4%, 8%, and 16%), fan speed determiner 410 may assign the hardware configuration a fan speed value of 72%.” Par 0066 and Figures 4, 5A-5C).
However, Lovicott does not explicitly teach wherein the fan speed value is further based on at least one factor including a user preference; transmitting the fan speed value that is based on the user preference instead of the first fan speed value and the second fan speed value to an operating system scheduler; determining a fan acoustic level based on the fan speed value; and in response to receiving the fan speed value, adjusting, by the operating system scheduler, a power setting and a priority of a foreground process, and stopping a background process of a workload based on the fan acoustic level exceeding a threshold.
In the analogous art, North teaches wherein the fan speed value is further based on at least one factor including a user preference (“user may include fan control information that has been adapted in response to user inputs indicating preferences such as unacceptable noise levels and scenarios during which any noise level is acceptable.” Par 0040 and “The user may provide noise feedback inputs specifying noise level preferences that are used in adapting the cooling provided by workload profiles.” Abstract);
transmitting the fan speed value that is based on the user preference instead of the first fan speed value and the second fan speed value to an operating system scheduler (“the first cooling profile and the second cooling profile comprise fan speed settings.” Par 0006 and “an airflow cooling process running within the operating system of the IHS may be configured to detect the initialization of software applications by the user and to monitor software applications that are actively in use” par 0041 and “this airflow cooling OS process may include a capability by which users may provide inputs regarding noise levels generated by the airflow cooling system.” par 0058 and par 39-42, Figure 4) [the fan speed value is transmitted as part of a workload profile (containing fan speed settings) that the OS process uses];
determining a fan acoustic level based on the fan speed value (“The user may provide noise feedback inputs specifying noise level preferences that are used in adapting the cooling provided by workload profiles.” Abstract and “workload profiles may additional or alternatively specify groups of software applications that are associated with similar cooling preferences, such as preferences specified via noise feedback inputs provided by the user.” Par 0042 and par 38, Figures 2-3) [the workload profiles correlate cooling output parameters (fan speeds) with specific noise levels, allowing the system to determine if the required cooling meets the acoustic thresholds];
in response to receiving the fan speed value, adjusting, by the operating system scheduler, a power setting and a priority of a foreground process, and stopping a background process of a workload based on the fan acoustic level exceeding a threshold (“an airflow cooling process running within the operating system [OS scheduler] of the IHS may be configured to detect the initialization of software applications by the user and to monitor software applications that are actively in use [foreground process]” par 0041 and “the airflow controller to: limit a processing load on the one or more processors by the second software application [background process],” par 0008 and “ a user may provide an indication that the current noise output of the cooling system is undesirable.” Par 0059 and “The cooling system may also respond by throttling performance characteristics…such as limiting the processor load or power consumption [power setting and priority] of the IHS.” par 0060) [the fan acoustic level is shown to exceed the threshold when the user indicates the noise in undesirable; when the fan noise exceeds the threshold, the OS scheduler adjusts the foreground process by throttling its power and priority while stopping the background process by strictly limiting its processing load to ensure the cooling requirement is within the noise limit].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lovicott and North before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lovicott to incorporate the teachings of North to utilize user noise preferences and adjust foreground and background processes based on the noise acoustic level exceeding a threshold to support maximum IHS performance while maintaining the noise level to be within the threshold. (North, paragraph 60)
Regarding claim 2, Lovicott and North teach the method of claim 1. Lovicott further teaches further comprising associating a weight to the at least one factor (“power control module 310 may provide … correlation coefficients for power curves, data associated with thermal resistance models, and/or any other information that may facilitate proper and efficient operation of thermal control module 320.” Par 0053).
Claim 13 corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 4, Lovicott and North teach the method of claim 1. North further teaches further comprising adjusting another power setting of the foreground process (“The cooling system may also respond by throttling performance characteristics of the IHS such that less heat is generated, and less cooling is required…such as limiting the processor load or power consumption of the IHS.” Par 0060) [the active workload (foreground) is adjusted by throttling performance and limiting power consumption].
Regarding claim 5, Lovicott and North teach the method of claim 1. North further teaches wherein the at least one factor includes user intent (“adapting and generating fan control using workload profiles based on user-provided noise preferences and historical monitoring of user behavior.” Par 0055 and Figure 4).
Claim 16 corresponds to claim 5 and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 6, Lovicott and North teach the method of claim 1. Lovicott further teaches wherein the at least one factor includes system state (“fan speed determiner 410 may determine fan speed value 412 based on a thermal resistance model taking into account various parameters such as component temperature parameters, component power consumption parameters, system ambient temperatures, and/or other suitable parameters” par 0076) [the system state corresponds to internal and environmental factors (temperatures, power consumption levels, etc.)].
Claim 17 corresponds to claim 6 and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 7, Lovicott and North teach the method of claim 1. North further teaches wherein the at least one factor includes thermal mode (“the cooling system switches to use of a cooling profile associated with the balanced workload profile, where this cooling profile uses a lower ramp rate and features a range of mid-level fan speeds and a relatively low maximum fan speed.” Par 0045) [the cooling profiles may correspond to thermal modes because they specify fan speed ranges and ramp rates which manage the IHS’s thermal and acoustic states].
Claim 20 corresponds to claim 7 and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 8, Lovicott and North teach the method of claim 1. Lovicott further teaches wherein the adjusting of the power setting is performed via an application programming interface (“manage the interface between the platform CPUs and system management software such as for managing power, controlling fans, etc.” par 0047) [the interface between the CPUs and software facilitates the power adjustments].
Regarding claim 9, Lovicott and North teach the method of claim 1. North further teaches wherein the adjusting of the power setting includes adjusting the priority of a background task (“limit a processing load on the one or more processors by the second software application, wherein the limited processing load results in reduced cooling requirements during operation of the second software application” par 0008) [the system adjusts resource allocation by limiting the processing load of the background task (second application)].
Regarding claim 10, Lovicott and North teach the method of claim 9. North further teaches wherein adjusting the priority of the background task includes lowering the priority of the background task (“limit a processing load on the one or more processors by the second software application, wherein the limited processing load results in reduced cooling requirements during operation of the second software application” par 0008) [limiting the processing load entails reducing resource consumption and heat, corresponding to lowering the priority of that process to maintain acoustic levels defined by the user].
Regarding claim 12, Lovicott teaches an information handling system (Figure 1, IHS 100), comprising: a processor (Figure 1, processor subsystem 120); and a memory storing code that when executed causes the processor to perform operations (Figure 1, memory 130 and par 28-30).
The remainder of claim 12 corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 15, Lovicott and North teach the information handling system of claim 12. North further teaches wherein the at least one factor includes user context (“cooling profiles may be predictively selected based on the context of a user's operation of IHS 100, such as the software applications that are in active use.” Par 0034) [the system uses the current software application being used by a user as a factor to predictively adjust cooling profiles].
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 15 and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 18, North teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium to store instructions that are executable to perform operations (“Program instructions and data stored on a tangible computer-accessible storage medium in non-transitory form may afterwards be transmitted by transmission media or signals” par 0065) comprising:
wherein the fan speed value is further based on at least one factor including a user preference (“user may include fan control information that has been adapted in response to user inputs indicating preferences such as unacceptable noise levels and scenarios during which any noise level is acceptable.” Par 0040 and “The user may provide noise feedback inputs specifying noise level preferences that are used in adapting the cooling provided by workload profiles.” Abstract);
transmitting the fan speed value that is based on the user preference instead of the first fan speed value and the second fan speed value to an operating system scheduler (“the first cooling profile and the second cooling profile comprise fan speed settings.” Par 0006 and “an airflow cooling process running within the operating system of the IHS may be configured to detect the initialization of software applications by the user and to monitor software applications that are actively in use” par 0041 and “this airflow cooling OS process may include a capability by which users may provide inputs regarding noise levels generated by the airflow cooling system.” par 0058 and par 39-42, Figure 4) [the fan speed value is transmitted as part of a workload profile (containing fan speed settings) that the OS process uses];
determining a fan acoustic level based on the fan speed value (“The user may provide noise feedback inputs specifying noise level preferences that are used in adapting the cooling provided by workload profiles.” Abstract and “workload profiles may additional or alternatively specify groups of software applications that are associated with similar cooling preferences, such as preferences specified via noise feedback inputs provided by the user.” Par 0042 and par 38, Figures 2-3) [the workload profiles correlate cooling output parameters (fan speeds) with specific noise levels, allowing the system to determine if the required cooling meets the acoustic thresholds]; and
in response to receiving the fan speed value, adjusting, by the operating system scheduler, allocation of computing resources to a background process and foreground process of a workload based on the fan acoustic level (“the airflow controller to: limit a processing load on the one or more processors by the second software application, wherein the limited processing load results in reduced cooling requirements during operation of the second software application, and wherein the reduced cooling requirements can be provided without exceeding the noise limit specified by the user input.” Par 0008 and “The cooling system may also respond by throttling performance characteristics of the IHS such that less heat is generated, and less cooling is required…these reductions in airflow output may necessitate throttling performance aspects of the IHS, such as limiting the processor load or power consumption of the IHS.” Par 0060 and par 41, 59) [the system adjusts processing load of first software application (foreground) and second software application (background) within the workload profile to ensure the thermal output of the fans do not exceed the acoustic threshold], wherein the adjusting of the allocation of computing resources includes stopping the background process (“the airflow controller to: limit a processing load on the one or more processors by the second software application” par 0008 and par 60).
However, North does not explicitly teach determining a fan speed value based on a first fan speed value and a second fan speed value.
In the analogous art, Lovicott teaches determining a fan speed value based on a first fan speed value and a second fan speed value (“fan speeds are included in power parameter LUT 510 FIG. 5B), the fan speeds may be summed according to the inventory of components…By summing the totals together (e.g., summing 36%, 8%, 4%, 8%, and 16%), fan speed determiner 410 may assign the hardware configuration a fan speed value of 72%.” Par 0066 and Figures 4, 5A-5C).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lovicott and North before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lovicott to incorporate the teachings of North to utilize user noise preferences and adjust foreground and background processes based on the noise acoustic level exceeding a threshold to support maximum IHS performance while maintaining the noise level to be within the threshold. (North, paragraph 60)
Claims 3, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovicott and North in view of North et al. (US 11,199,886 B1), hereinafter referred to as North 2.
Regarding claim 3, Lovicott and North teach the method of claim 2. However, Lovicott and North do not explicitly teach wherein the weight is based on a rank of the factor.
In the analogous art, North 2 teaches wherein the weight is based on a rank of the factor (“if the value of user optimization parameter 206 is set to one optimization mode, method 400 completes at block 405 where the first configuration parameter (EPP 204) can be adjusted to reduce power dissipation of the CPU by a first amount. If the value of user optimization parameter 206 is set to another optimization mode, method 400 completes at block 406 where the EPP 204 can be adjusted to reduce power dissipation of the CPU by a second amount.” Col. 7, ll. 33-41 and Figure 4) [user parameter 206 corresponds to the factor; the rank corresponds to its specific setting; the weight is determined by this rank as it dictates the specific amount of power dissipation].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lovicott, North and North 2 before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lovicott and North to incorporate the teachings of North 2 to associate weights with the rank of the factors to take appropriate action regarding the power reduction scheme to best maintain user’s preferences. (North, column 6)
Claim 14 corresponds to claim 3 and is rejected accordingly
Regarding claim 11, Lovicott and North teach the method of claim 10. However, Lovicott and North do not explicitly teach further comprising subsequent to lowering the priority of the background task, restoring the priority of the background task in response to a change in the fan acoustic level.
In the analogous art, North 2 teaches subsequent to lowering the priority of the background task, restoring the priority of the background task in response to a change in the fan acoustic level (“method 300 can implement a means to increase power/ performance of system 100 if the skin temperature or noise levels fall below a second predetermined level that is less than the maximum value utilized at decision block 302. For example, if the skin temperature or the acoustic level falls below the second predetermined value, the previous values of EPP parameter 204 can be incrementally restored and power reductions applied to subsystems 216 can be incrementally disabled, as shown at block 314.” Col. 6, ll. 59-67 and Figure 3) [the priority of tasks is restored after they were previously lowered].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lovicott, North and North 2 before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lovicott and North to incorporate the teachings of North 2 to adjust the priority of a background task and restore the priority when the fan acoustic level changes to prevent unimportant tasks using the CPU, thus freeing up the CPU and improving system responsiveness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12, 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
No additional arguments were presented as to the remaining claims. As such, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Wiltzius et al. (US 2023/0269904 A1) teaches a memory that stores operational speed-to-noise correlation of an air moving device. A processor receives a noise level selected by a user and determines operational speed of the air moving device based on the noise level selected by the user and the operational speed-to-noise correlation to control the air moving device to operate at the operational speed that is determined.
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 AYMAN FATIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0830. The examiner can normally be reached M to Fri between 8am to 4pm EST.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached on (571)270-1640. 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.
/AYMAN FATIMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2176
/JAWEED A ABBASZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights