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 .
Status of the claims
The argument received on January, 15 2025 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 8, 9, and 16 are amended. Thus, claims 1-19 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on January, 15 2025 with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-6 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments filed on January, 15 2025 with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. However, since the rejection below relies on previously cited prior art, Applicant’s arguments with respect to Sagerian in view of Ishil are addressed as follows:
Regarding claims 1, 8, 9, and 16, Applicant alleges that Sagerian and Ishil fail to teach or suggest receiving temperature data on a temperature outside the enclosure, determining a thermal resistance of the enclosure and/or a thermal capacitance of the enclosure on the basis of the received data, and receiving data indicative of heat generated by the at least one electric device into the enclosure.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sagerian teaches, in para. [0032], that the display enclosure 10 is capable of maintaining the internal temperature inside the enclosure within the operating range of the display device 20 for an ambient temperature range of between about 1 degrees Celsius and about 60 degrees Celsius. Examiner interprets “maintaining the internal temperature inside the enclosure within the operating range of the display device 20 for an ambient temperature range of between about 1 degrees Celsius and about 60 degrees Celsius” as “receiving temperature data on a temperature outside the enclosure” because measuring temperature outside is necessary to monitor whether an ambient temperature is within the predetermined range (i.e. between about 1 degrees Celsius and about 60 degrees Celsius) to maintain the internal temperature inside the enclosure within the operating range.
Further, Ishil teaches, in para. [0038], that parameters KG, KH, τG, τH are determined in advance on the basis of measured values. Further, Ishil teaches, in para. [0046], the thermal time constant τG which depends on the magnitude of the thermal resistance and the thermal capacitance. Further, Ishil teaches, in para. [0055], that an application program executed by the processor 101, and various pieces of data such as measured temperature data and the above heat transfer coefficient and thermal time constant. Examiner interprets the above feature of “parameters KG, KH, τG, τH in para. [0038], “the thermal time constant τG which depends on the magnitude of the thermal resistance and the thermal capacitance” in para. [0046], and “various pieces of data such as measured temperature data and the above heat transfer coefficient (i.e. thermal resistance and thermal capacitance) and thermal time constant “ in para. [0055] as “determining a thermal resistance of the enclosure on the basis of the received data.”
Furthermore, Ishil teaches, in para. [0032], that a transfer function based on a thermal resistance and a thermal capacitance between a heat source over the substrate 3 and the surface of the enclosure 2. Examiner interprets “a transfer function based on a thermal resistance and a thermal capacitance between a heat source over the substrate 3 and the surface of the enclosure 2” as “receiving data indicative of heat generated by the at least one electric device into the enclosure.”
Therefore, combination of Sagerian and Ishil teach the limitation of “receiving temperature data on a temperature outside the enclosure, determining a thermal resistance of the enclosure and/or a thermal capacitance of the enclosure on the basis of the received data, and receiving data indicative of heat generated by the at least one electric device into the enclosure.”
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A computer implemented method for monitoring cooling of an enclosure comprising at least one electric device, the method including:
receiving temperature data on a temperature outside the enclosure;
receiving temperature data on a temperature inside the enclosure;
receiving data indicative of heat generated by the at least one electric device into the enclosure;
determining a thermal resistance of the enclosure and/or a thermal capacitance of the enclosure on the basis of the received data comprising the temperature data on the temperature outside the enclosure, the temperature data on the temperature inside the enclosure and the data indicative of the heat generated by at least one electric device into the enclosure;
determining a cooling status of the enclosure on the basis of the determined thermal resistance of the enclosure and thermal resistance reference data and/or on the basis of the determined thermal capacitance of the enclosure and thermal capacitance reference data; and
controlling the at least one electric device on the basis of the determined cooling status of the enclosure.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Step 1: under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Step 2A, Prong One: under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
For example, steps of “determining a thermal resistance of the enclosure and/or a thermal capacitance of the enclosure on the basis of the received data (page 7, lines 11-30 and page 9, lines 21-35: step 202 of instant application)” and “determining a cooling status of the enclosure on the basis of the determined thermal resistance of the enclosure and thermal resistance reference data and/or on the basis of the determined thermal capacitance of the enclosure and thermal capacitance reference data (page 7, lines 11-30 and page 9, lines 21-35: step 203 of instant application)” as drafted, are a mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)C.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 8, 9, and 16.
Step 2A, Prong Two: under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: a computer implemented method for monitoring cooling of an enclosure comprising at least one electric device (preamble); receiving temperature data on a temperature outside the enclosure; receiving temperature data on a temperature inside the enclosure; receiving data indicative of heat generated by the at least one electric device into the enclosure; controlling the at least one electric device on the basis of the determined cooling status of the enclosure;
In Claim 8: a computer program product comprising non-transitory computer readable medium; and program instructions embodied on the non-transitory computer readable medium (preamble); receiving temperature data on a temperature outside the enclosure; receiving temperature data on a temperature inside the enclosure; receiving data indicative of heat generated by the at least one electric device into the enclosure; controlling the at least one electric device on the basis of the determined cooling status of the enclosure;
In Claim 9: an apparatus for monitoring cooling of an enclosure comprising at least one electric device, the apparatus including a processor, and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor (preamble); receiving temperature data on a temperature outside the enclosure; receiving temperature data on a temperature inside the enclosure; receiving data indicative of heat generated by the at least one electric device into the enclosure; controlling the at least one electric device on the basis of the determined cooling status of the enclosure; and
In Claim 16: a system (preamble); an enclosure; at least one electronic device located within the enclosure; at least one apparatus; receiving temperature data on a temperature outside the enclosure; receiving temperature data on a temperature inside the enclosure; receiving data indicative of heat generated by the at least one electric device into the enclosure; controlling the at least one electric device on the basis of the determined cooling status of the enclosure.
The additional element of “a computer implemented method for monitoring cooling of an enclosure,” “non-transitory computer readable medium,” “a computer program product comprising program instructions embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium,” “an apparatus for monitoring cooling of an enclosure,” “at least one electric device,” “the apparatus including a processor,” “a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor,” “enclosure,” “ at least one electronic device located within the enclosure,” and “at least one apparatus” are recited at a high-level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Further, note that the additional elements of “receiving temperature data on a temperature outside the enclosure,” “receiving temperature data on a temperature inside the enclosure,” and “receiving data indicative of heat generated by the at least one electric device into the enclosure” are insignificant (data gathering) extra-solution activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on prior art of record (Sagerian, Kim (KR20100006018U), Agnaou et al. (US 2017/0219230 A1)). For example, Sagerian, Kim, and Agnaou teach receiving temperature data on a temperature outside the enclosure (para. [0032] of Sagerian; page 6, lines 4-6 of Kim; para. [0017] of Agnaou). Further, Sagerian and Kim teach receiving temperature data on a temperature inside the enclosure (paras. [0048], [0057] of Sagerian; page 4, lines 9-21 of Kim), receiving data indicative of heat generated by the at least one electric device into the enclosure (paras. [0048], [0057] of Sagerian; page 4, liens 9-14 of Kim), and controlling the at least one electric device on the basis of the determined cooling status of the enclosure (paras. [0045], [0055]: thermal controller of Sagerian; page 6, liens 4-6: control unit of Kim).
Therefore, independent claims 1, 8, 9, and 16 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-7 and 10-15,
All features recited in these claims are abstract ideas, as all features found in these claims are directed towards mathematical calculations. The explanation for the rejection of Claims 1, 8, 9, and 16 therefore are incorporated herein and applied to Claims 2-7 and 10-15. These claims therefore stand rejected for similar reasons as explained in above Claims 1, 8, 9, and 16
Regarding claim 17
The additional element of “one or more temperature sensors configured to measure temperature inside the enclosure and to send the temperature data to the at least one apparatus” is are insignificant (data gathering) extra-solution activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 18
The additional element of “the at least one electric device is configured to send to the at least one apparatus temperature data on the temperature inside the enclosure and/or data indicative of heat generated by the at least one electric device” is insignificant (post-solution activity) extra-solution activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 19
The additional element of “least one electric device comprises at least one electric drive” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (para. [0043] of Sagerian; paras. [0043]-[0044] of Jin et al. (US 20190319523)).
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 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, 3-9, and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagerian et al. (US 2015/0116507 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Sagerian”) in view of Ishil et al. (US 2016/0187272 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Ishil”).
Regarding claim 1, Sagerian teaches a computer implemented method for monitoring cooling of an enclosure (Fig. 6, enclosure) comprising at least one electric device (Fig. 6, elements 20, 500, 520 etc) (para. [0032]: thermal control may be accomplished by including devices intended to add and/or remove heat from the display enclosure 10 depending on ambient conditions and/or the operating conduction of the display device 20), the method including:
receiving temperature data on a temperature outside the enclosure (para. [0032]: the display enclosure 10 is capable of maintaining the internal temperature inside the enclosure within the operating range of the display device 20 for an ambient temperature range of between about 1 degrees Celsius and about 60 degrees Celsius, note that the above feature of “maintaining the internal temperature inside the enclosure within the operating range of the display device 20 for an ambient temperature range of between about 1 degrees Celsius and about 60 degrees Celsius” reads on “receiving temperature data on a temperature outside the enclosure” because measuring temperature outside is necessary to monitor whether an ambient temperature is within the predetermined range (i.e. between about 1 degrees Celsius and about 60 degrees Celsius) to maintain the internal temperature inside the enclosure within the operating range;
receiving temperature data on a temperature inside the enclosure (para. [0032]: the display enclosure 10 is capable of maintaining the internal temperature inside the enclosure within the operating range of the display device 20 for an ambient temperature range of between about 1 degrees Celsius and about 60 degrees Celsius, note that the above feature of “maintaining the internal temperature inside the enclosure within the operating range” reads on “receiving temperature data on a temperature inside the enclosure);
determining a cooling status of the enclosure on the basis of the determined thermal value of the enclosure and thermal reference data and/or on the basis of the determined thermal value of the enclosure and thermal reference data (para. [0032]: thermal control may be accomplished by including devices intended to add and/or remove heat from the display enclosure 10 depending on ambient conditions and/or the operating conduction of the display device 20...the display enclosure 10 is capable of maintaining the internal temperature inside the enclosure within the operating range of the display device 20 for an ambient temperature range of between about 1 degrees Celsius and about 60 degrees Celsius, note that the above feature of “remove heat” in para. [0032] and “operating range” in para. [0032] reads on “cooling” and “reference data,” respectively).
controlling the at least one electric device on the basis of the determined cooling status of the enclosure (para. [0045]: the thermal controller 510 may be configured to control the heating or cooling of a heat transfer device 600. In one implementation, the thermal controller 510 may receive an output from the temperature sensor 560; para. [0055]: the thermal controller 510 may control the current flowing through the one or more heat transfer devices 600 using pulse width modulation (PWM). the thermal controller 510 may control the duty cycle of the pulse width modulation to vary the heating or cooling provided by the one or more heat transfer devices 600).
Sagerian does not specifically teach determining a thermal resistance of the enclosure and/or a thermal capacitance of the enclosure on the basis of the received data and the data indicative of the heat generated by at least one electric device into the enclosure.
However, Ishil teaches determining a thermal resistance of the enclosure and/or a thermal capacitance of the enclosure on the basis of the received data
(para. [0038]: parameters KG, KH, τG, τH are determined in advance on the basis of measured values; para. [0046]: the thermal time constant τG which depends on the magnitude of the thermal resistance and the thermal capacitance; para. [0055]: an application program executed by the processor 101, and various pieces of data such as measured temperature data and the above heat transfer coefficient and thermal time constant, note that the above feature of “parameters KG, KH, τG, τH in para. [0038], “the thermal time constant τG which depends on the magnitude of the thermal resistance and the thermal capacitance” in para. [0046], and “various pieces of data such as measured temperature data and the above heat transfer coefficient (i.e. thermal resistance and thermal capacitance) and thermal time constant” in para. [0055] reads on “determining a thermal resistance of the enclosure on the basis of the received data”) and
the data indicative of the heat generated by at least one electric device into the enclosure (para. [0032]: a transfer function based on a thermal resistance and a thermal capacitance between a heat source over the substrate 3 and the surface of the enclosure 2, note that the above feature of transfer function between a heat source and the surface of the enclosure reads on “data indicative of the heat generated by at least one electric device into the enclosure”).
Sagerian and Ishil are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of analyzing the measured digital signal having noise. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the determining the thermal resistance and the thermal capacitance such as are described in Ishii into Sagerian in order to provide an enclosure of the electronic apparatus on the basis of a first transfer function based on a first thermal resistance and a first thermal capacitance (Ishil, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 3, Sagerian in view of Ishil teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Ishil teaches the thermal condition of the enclosure is determined on the basis of the received data when a rate of change of a temperature difference between the temperature inside the enclosure and the temperature outside the enclosure is essentially zero or has been essentially zero for a first predetermined time period (para. [0047]: the thermal control unit 510 may be equipped with one or more temperature set points, note that the above feature of “thermal control unit” in para. [0047] reads on “determined on the basis of the received data when a rate of change of a temperature difference between the temperature inside the enclosure and the temperature outside the enclosure is essentially zero or has been essentially zero for a first predetermined time period”).
Sagerian does not specifically teach a thermal resistance.
However, Ishil teaches a thermal resistance.
(para. [0032]: the temperature calculation processing section 5a calculates the surface temperature of the enclosure 2 on the basis of a transfer function based on a thermal resistance and a thermal capacitance; para. [0046]: the thermal time constant τG which depends on the magnitude of the thermal resistance and the thermal capacitance).
Sagerian and Ishil are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of analyzing the measured digital signal having noise. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the thermal resistance such as is described in Ishii into Sagerian in order to provide an enclosure of the electronic apparatus on the basis of a first transfer function based on a first thermal resistance and a first thermal capacitance (Ishil, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 4. Sagerian in view of Ishil teaches all the limitation of claim 3, in addition, Sagerian teaches that the thermal condition of the enclosure is determined on the basis of the heat generated by the at least one electric device into the enclosure, or a quantity indicative thereof, and the temperature difference between the temperature inside the enclosure and the temperature outside the enclosure (para. [0032]: thermal control may be accomplished by including devices intended to add and/or remove heat from the display enclosure 10 depending on ambient conditions and/or the operating conduction of the display device 20, note that the above feature of “heat from the display enclosure 10 depending on ambient conditions and/or the operating conduction of the display device 20” in para. [0032] reads on “the thermal condition of the enclosure is determined on the basis of the heat generated by the at least one electric device into the enclosure”).
Sagerian does not specifically teach a thermal resistance.
However, Ishil teaches a thermal resistance.
(para. [0032]: the temperature calculation processing section 5a calculates the surface temperature of the enclosure 2 on the basis of a transfer function based on a thermal resistance and a thermal capacitance; para. [0046]: the thermal time constant τG which depends on the magnitude of the thermal resistance and the thermal capacitance).
Sagerian and Ishil are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of analyzing the measured digital signal having noise. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the thermal resistance such as is described in Ishii into Sagerian in order to provide an enclosure of the electronic apparatus on the basis of a first transfer function based on a first thermal resistance and a first thermal capacitance (Ishil, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 5, Sagerian in view of Ishil teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Sagerian teaches that the thermal condition of the enclosure is determined on the basis of a heat generated by the at least one electric device (para. [0032]: thermal control may be accomplished by including devices intended to add and/or remove heat from the display enclosure 10 depending on ambient conditions and/or the operating conduction of the display device 20, note that the above feature of “heat from the display enclosure 10 depending on ambient conditions and/or the operating conduction of the display device 20” reads on “thermal condition of the enclosure is determined on the basis of a heat generated by the at least one electric device”) and
stored into the enclosure over a second predetermined time period (para. [0047]: the internal fan 410 then operates, mixing the air within the display enclosure 10, for a predetermined period, until the detected internal temperature falls below the first temperature set point; para. [0048]: the heater 420 operates, elevating the temperature within the display enclosure 10, for a predetermined period, until the detected internal temperature rises above the second temperature set point [0071]: the log may be stored in the memory 704 of the monitoring device 30),
and a cumulative change of the temperature difference between the temperature inside the enclosure and the temperature outside the enclosure occurring over the second predetermined time period (para. [0048]: The heater 420 may be located within the display enclosure 10 to facilitate operation of the display device 20 under ambient temperature conditions… the heater 420 operates, elevating the temperature within the display enclosure 10, for a predetermined period, until the detected internal temperature rises above the second temperature set point; [0071]: the log may be stored in the memory 704 of the monitoring device 30, the above feature of “the display enclosure 10 to facilitate operation of the display device 20 under ambient temperature conditions” and “fan mixing the air and heater elevating the temperature for a predetermined period” in para. [0048] and “log stored in the memory” in para. [0071] reads on “a cumulative change of the temperature difference between the temperature inside the enclosure and the temperature outside the enclosure occurring over the second predetermined time period”).
wherein the heat generated by the at least one electric device and stored into the enclosure over the second predetermined time period is determined on the basis of the heat generated by the at least one electric device into the enclosure over the second predetermined time period, or a quantity indicative thereof, and a heat dissipated from the enclosure over the second predetermined time period (para. [0048]: the heater 420 operates, elevating the temperature within the display enclosure 10, for a predetermined period, until the detected internal temperature rises above the second temperature set point; [0071]: the log may be stored in the memory 704 of the monitoring device 30), and
wherein the heat dissipated from the enclosure over the second predetermined time period is determined on the basis of a cumulative temperature difference between the temperature inside the enclosure and the temperature outside the enclosure occurring over the second predetermined time period and the determined thermal condition of the enclosure (para. [0048]: the heater 420 may be located within the display enclosure 10 to facilitate operation of the display device 20 under ambient temperature conditions… the heater 420 operates, elevating the temperature within the display enclosure 10, for a predetermined period, until the detected internal temperature rises above the second temperature set point; [0071]: the log may be stored in the memory 704 of the monitoring device 30, the above feature of “the display enclosure 10 to facilitate operation of the display device 20 under ambient temperature conditions” and “fan mixing the air and heater elevating the temperature for a predetermined period” in para. [0048] and “log stored in the memory” in para. [0071] reads on “a cumulative temperature difference between the temperature inside the enclosure and the temperature outside the enclosure occurring over the second predetermined time period the determined thermal condition of the enclosure”).
Sagerian does not specifically teach a thermal resistance and a thermal capacitance.
However, Ishil teaches a thermal resistance and a thermal capacitance
(para. [0032]: the temperature calculation processing section 5a calculates the surface temperature of the enclosure 2 on the basis of a transfer function based on a thermal resistance and a thermal capacitance; para. [0046]: the thermal time constant τG which depends on the magnitude of the thermal resistance and the thermal capacitance).
Sagerian and Ishil are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of analyzing the measured digital signal having noise. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the thermal resistance and the thermal capacitance such as are described in Ishii into Sagerian in order to provide an enclosure of the electronic apparatus on the basis of a first transfer function based on a first thermal resistance and a first thermal capacitance (Ishil, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 6, Sagerian in view of Ishil teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Sagerian teaches the determining of the cooling status of the enclosure comprises includes comparing the determined thermal resistance of the enclosure with the thermal resistance reference data and/or comparing the determined thermal capacitance of the enclosure with the thermal capacitance reference data (para. [0032]: thermal control may be accomplished by including devices intended to add and/or remove heat from the display enclosure 10 depending on ambient conditions and/or the operating conduction of the display device 20...the display enclosure 10 is capable of maintaining the internal temperature inside the enclosure within the operating range of the display device 20 for an ambient temperature range of between about 1 degrees Celsius and about 60 degrees Celsius, note that the above feature of “remove heat” in para. [0032] and “maintaining the internal temperature inside the enclosure within the operating range of the display device 20 for an ambient temperature range of between about 1 degrees Celsius and about 60 degrees Celsius” in para. [0032] reads on “cooling” and “comparing the determined thermal condition of the enclosure with the thermal condition reference data,” respectively).
Sagerian does not specifically teach a thermal resistance and a thermal capacitance.
However, Ishil teaches a thermal resistance and a thermal capacitance
(para. [0032]: the temperature calculation processing section 5a calculates the surface temperature of the enclosure 2 on the basis of a transfer function based on a thermal resistance and a thermal capacitance; para. [0046]: the thermal time constant τG which depends on the magnitude of the thermal resistance and the thermal capacitance).
Sagerian and Ishil are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of analyzing the measured digital signal having noise. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the thermal resistance and the thermal capacitance such as are described in Ishii into Sagerian in order to provide an enclosure of the electronic apparatus on the basis of a first transfer function based on a first thermal resistance and a first thermal capacitance (Ishil, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 7, Sagerian in view of Ishil teaches all the limitation of claim 6, in addition, Sagerian teaches that the thermal condition reference data includes historical data of the enclosure or a comparable enclosure (para. [0048]: the heater 420 operates, elevating the temperature within the display enclosure 10, for a predetermined period, until the detected internal temperature rises above the second temperature set point; para. [0071]: the log may be stored in the memory 704 of the monitoring device 30, the above feature of “elevating the temperature within the display enclosure 10, for a predetermined period” in para. [0048] and “the log may be stored in the memory 704 of the monitoring device 30” in para. [0071] reads on “history data”).
Sagerian does not specifically teach a thermal resistance and a thermal capacitance.
However, Ishil teaches a thermal resistance and a thermal capacitance
(para. [0032]: the temperature calculation processing section 5a calculates the surface temperature of the enclosure 2 on the basis of a transfer function based on a thermal resistance and a thermal capacitance; para. [0046]: the thermal time constant τG which depends on the magnitude of the thermal resistance and the thermal capacitance).
Sagerian and Ishil are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of analyzing the measured digital signal having noise. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the thermal resistance and the thermal capacitance such as are described in Ishii into Sagerian in order to provide an enclosure of the electronic apparatus on the basis of a first transfer function based on a first thermal resistance and a first thermal capacitance (Ishil, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 8, it is a computer program product type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The additional limitations of a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium (Fig. 7, memory 704) and program instructions embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium (paras. [0008]-[0009], [0061], [0064]: processor, microprocessor), taught by Sagerian.
Regarding claim 9, it is an apparatus type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The additional limitations of an apparatus for monitoring cooling of an enclosure comprising at least one electric device (Fig. 6, enclosure), the apparatus including a processor, and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor (paras. [0008]-[0009], [0061], [0064]: processor, microprocessor, memory), taught by Sagerian.
Regarding claim 11, it is dependent on claim 9 and has similar limitations as of claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 12, it is dependent on claim 11 and has similar limitations as of claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 13, it is dependent on claim 9 and has similar limitations as of claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 14, it is dependent on claim 9 and has similar limitations as of claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 15, it is dependent on claim 14 and has similar limitations as of claim 7 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 16, it is a system type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The additional limitations of a system comprising: an enclosure (Fig. 6, enclosure); at least one electric device located within the enclosure (Fig. 6, elements 20, 500, 520; para. para. [0032]: thermal control may be accomplished by including devices intended to add and/or remove heat from the display enclosure 10 depending on ambient conditions and/or the operating conduction of the display device 20); and at least one apparatus (para. [0032]: see above), taught by Sagerian.
Regarding claim 17, Sagerian in view of Ishil teaches all the limitation of claim 16, in addition, Sagerian teaches further comprising one or more temperature sensors configured to measure temperature inside the enclosure (Fig. 6; para. [0048]: the thermal control unit 510 activates the heater 420 upon detecting a temperature within the display enclosure 10 that falls below a second temperature set point ) and to send the temperature data to the at least one apparatus (Fig. 6, 30, para. [0048]: monitoring device 30).
Regarding claim 18, Sagerian in view of Ishil teaches all the limitation of claim 16, in addition, Sagerian teaches that the at least one electric device (Fig 6. 30, 560) is configured to send to the at least one apparatus temperature data on the temperature inside the enclosure (Fig. 6, 510; para. [0048]: the thermal control unit 510 activates the heater 420 upon detecting a temperature within the display enclosure 10 that falls below a second temperature set point; para. [0057]: the monitoring device 30 receives input from various sensors disposed within the interior of the display enclosure 10 to monitor the state of the display device 20) and/or data indicative of heat generated by the at least one electric device (Fig. 6, 20, 500, 520, etc; para. [0025]: referring to FIG. 1, a display system is shown to include a display device 20 such as a LCD, LED or plasma flat panel display device housed within a display enclosure 10).
Regarding claim 19, Sagerian in view of Ishil teaches all the limitation of claim 16, in addition, Sagerian teaches that the at least one electric device (Fig. 6, 510) comprises at least one electric drive (Fig. 6, 410 and 420).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagerian in view of Ishil further in view of Kolm et al. (WO 2022/023342 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Kolm”).
Regarding claim 2, Sagerian in view of Ishil teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Sagerian teaches the data indicative of the heat generated by the at least one electric device into the enclosure (Fig. 6; para. [0048]: the thermal control unit 510 activates the heater 420 upon detecting a temperature within the display enclosure 10 that falls below a second temperature set point; para. [0057]: the monitoring device 30 receives input from various sensors disposed within the interior of the display enclosure 10 to monitor the state of the display device 20).
Sagerian and Ishil do not specifically teach comprising data on a power loss or an estimated power loss of the at least one electric device and/or data on an energy loss or an estimated energy loss of the at least one electric device.
However, Kolm teaches comprising data on a power loss or an estimated power loss of the at least one electric device and/or data on an energy loss or an estimated energy loss of the at least one electric device (page 4, lines 21-24: validating the mounting arrangement and/or the circuit layout may, for example, comprise: estimating a heat dissipation capacity of the enclosure; estimating a power loss of the set of electrical devices, in use).
Sagerian and Kolm are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of estimating a heat dissipation capacity of the enclosur. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the data on a power loss or an estimated power loss of the at least one electric device and/or data on an energy loss or an estimated energy loss of the at least one electric device such as are described in Kolm into Sagerian in order to allow the circuit layout to establish that the configuration of the set of electrical devices when mounted in the enclosure meets predetermined requirements for the electrical distribution apparatus (Kolm, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 10, it is dependent on claim 9 and has similar limitations as of claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 3 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Laneryd et al. (EP 3299783 A1) teaches a method of thermal monitoring of a power device 1 comprising an enclosure 3 around a heat-generating component 5 in contact with a circulating electrically insulating cooling fluid 4. The power device also comprises a first sensor 7a performing measurements relating to power losses of the power device and a second sensor 7b performing measurements of a reference temperature of the power device.
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 SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571)270-5628. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858