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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed 7/16/2024 is being considered by the examiner
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 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 engine configured to collect", "a prediction module configured to predict", "a fan control engine configured to calculate", and "a handler configured to control" in claim 10.
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 Objections
Claims 3 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites, "a BMC [line 3]." The examiner suggests, "a baseboard management controller (BMC)."
Claim 8 recites, "when the CPU temperature [line 2]." The examiner suggests, "when the future CPU temperature."
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogawa et al. [U.S. Pub. 2015/0245540] ("Ogawa").
With regard to claim 1, Ogawa teaches a cooling fan control method ("controls the number of rotations of a fan [par. 0008]") comprising:
collecting monitoring data regarding computing modules ("The temperature collecting unit 41 is configured to collect the CPU temperatures y0 of the heat generating components 14a measured by the generated heat temperature measuring units 32 [par. 0053]" and " The electric power collecting unit 44 is configured to collect the consumed electric powers vP of the electronic apparatuses 14 measured by the electric power sensors 34 [par. 0056]");
calculating a current CPU power from the collected monitoring data ("the largest electric power detecting unit 45 is configured to calculate a largest electric power v2 which is the largest of the plurality of consumed electric powers vP [par. 0057]" and "component 14a such a CPU [par. 0041]" and "the approximate consumed electric power of the heat generating component 14a can be estimated by the corresponding electric power sensor 34 [par. 0043]");
predicting a future CPU temperature from the collected monitoring data ("predicting a future CPU temperature based on the highest temperature yreal, the average temperature v1, and the largest electric power v2 [par. 0058]");
setting a rotation speed of a cooling fan based on the calculated current CPU power and the predicted future CPU temperature ("the model predicting unit 46 is configured to calculate the number of rotations for each fan 12a with which the CPU temperatures can be within an allowable range, by predicting a future CPU temperature based on the highest temperature yreal, the average temperature v1, and the largest electric power v2 [par. 0058]"); and
controlling the cooling fan at the set rotation speed ("the model predicting unit 46 controls the number of rotations of each fan 12a [par. 0106]").
With regard to claims 10 and 11, Ogawa teaches claim 1 above. Claims 10 and 11 recite limitations having the same scope as those pertaining to claim 1; therefore, claims 10 and 11 are rejected along the same grounds as claim 1.
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.
Claim 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Lee et al. [U.S. Pub. 2022/0156171] ("Lee").
With regard to claim 2, Ogawa teaches the cooling fan control method of claim 1, wherein predicting comprises predicting a future CPU temperature by using a ("the prediction model 60 is configured to calculate a predicted value ỹ of a future temperature of a heat generating component 14a based on the highest temperature yreal the average temperature v1, the largest electric power v2, and the number of rotations u of each fan 12a [par. 0070]").
Ogawa does not explicitly teach where the model is an AI model and is trained.
In the same field of endeavor (temperature prediction), Lee teaches training an AI model ("a temperature prediction system and method for the PCIe chip of the server, including training data and output data for defining the temperature prediction model of the PCIe chip of the server, using the training data to train and test the temperature prediction model, adjusting the temperature prediction model so that the output data of the temperature prediction model is close to the measured value, and using the temperature prediction model and the temperature predictor formed by the key features to predict the temperature of the chip of the PCIe card [par. 0021]").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified Ogawa's teachings, to include training an AI model as taught by Lee, for the benefit of obtaining better data analysis and predictive insight.
With regard to claim 3, the combination above teaches the cooling fan control method of claim 2. Lee in the combination further teaches wherein the AI model is trained by an external platform and is driven in a secondary service processor (SSP) which is distinguished from a primary service processor (PSP) of a BMC ("The temperature predictor comprises a temperature prediction model defined by a gated recurrent unit (GRU) of a recurrent neural network (RNN) for the chip of the PCIe card 12, and a set of key features that best reflect the temperature change of the chip of the PCIe card 12. The temperature prediction model and the set of key features can be stored in the memory 4 and executed by the central processing unit 2 [par. 0015]" and "The baseboard management controller is configured to control a temperature prediction model to generate a predicted temperature of the chip of the PCIe card [par. 0007]").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have implemented the neural network on the processor as taught by Lee, instead of the baseboard management controller via a primary service processor, since the combination predictable uses prior art elements according to their established functions to yield predictable results and implementing the neural network in the processor would predictably free up the processing capabilities of the BMC.
Claim 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Tsutsui [U.S. Pub. 2007/0047199].
With regard to claim 4, Ogawa teaches the cooling fan control method of claim 1, wherein setting comprises, and a set maximum temperature ("predicted value of the temperature of the heat generating component 14a at a time point k+1 [par. 0108]" and "The equation (13) defines the allowable range of the highest temperature y of the heat generating component 14a, where ymin and ymax represent the lower limit temperature and upper limit temperature of the allowable range, respectively. These values are not particularly limited. As the upper limit temperature ymax, a temperature of about 80ᵒ C., at which thermal runaway of the heat generating component 14a does not occur, can be employed [par. 0131]" and "When the highest electric power rise rate vp_max rises abruptly, it is very likely that the temperature of the heat generating component 14a will rise in a future. Thus, the highest electric power rise rate vp_max can serve as criterion to determine whether or not to proactively cool the heat generating component 14a [par. 0100]"), giving an optimal rotation speed that is obtained when the future CPU temperature is a maximum temperature as a rotation speed of the cooling fan ("the model predicting unit 46 is configured to calculate the number of rotations for each fan 12a with which the CPU temperatures can be within an allowable range [par. 0058]" and "once a maximum number of rotations is found at which the highest temperature y does not exceed the upper limit value ymax mentioned above, that number of rotations can be determined as the maximum number of rotations u0 [par. 0152]" and "each fan 12a is rotated at the maximum number of rotations u0 stored in the number-of-rotations setting unit 35 under control of the fixing unit 47 [par. 0150]").
Ogawa teaches dynamically controlling the fans based on a future CPU temperature where minimum and maximum temperatures of the CPU and minimum and maximum number of rotations of the fans are considered [pars. 0106-0147, drawn to step S17 of fig. 6], and also teaches controlling the fans to a determined maximum number of rotations based on a determination that the CPU is approaching a runaway temperature/condition based on a power rise rate [pars. 0098-00104].
However, Ogawa does not explicitly teach when the future CPU temperature exceeds a set maximum temperature.
In an analogous art (fan control), Tsutsui teaches when a CPU temperature exceeds a set maximum temperature (see [fig. 17] where when a CPU temperature exceeds a set temperature, e.g., temperature 4, the fan is set to max).
Tsutsui further teaches, "When the temperature of the heating device 21 increases up to the threshold temperature necessary for cooling the heating device 21, the rotation speed of the fan can be set at the target rotation speed corresponding to the threshold temperature simply by increasing the rotation speed of the fan slightly. Great quietness can thus be achieved as compared with the case where the rotation speed of the fan rises from zero to the target rotation speed at once [par. 0136]" and
Ogawa further teaches, "the air conditioner is provided with fans to generate the cooling air. A key to reduce the electric power consumed by the datacenter lies in how to reduce the electric power consumed by these fans [par. 0005]."
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention, in light of Tsutsui's teachings, for Ogawa to dynamically control the fans based on various CPU metrics, including a temperature threshold, for the benefit of reducing power consumed and noise produced by the fans while still allowing the cooling system to adequately cool the CPU. That is, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have utilized the fixing unit that fixes the max number of rotations of the fan [fig. 6: S18] when a determined temperature threshold is exceeded (in combination to when a power threshold is exceeded which is indicative of heat increasing) [fig. 6: S16].
With regard to claim 5, the combination above teaches the cooling fan control method of claim 4. Ogawa in the combination further teaches wherein setting comprises, when the future CPU temperature is less than or equal to the set maximum temperature, setting a rotation speed of the cooling fan based on the current CPU power ("the model predicting unit 46 is configured to calculate the number of rotations for each fan 12a with which the CPU temperatures can be within an allowable range, by predicting a future CPU temperature based on the highest temperature yreal, the average temperature v1, and the largest electric power v2 [par. 0058];" where the model predicting unit controls the fan).
With regard to claim 6, the combination above teaches the cooling fan control method of claim 5. Tsutsui in the combination further teaches wherein setting comprises, when the current CPU power is less than or equal to a threshold power, giving a minimum rotation speed as a rotation speed of the cooling fan (see [fig. 17] where when a CPU temperature is below a threshold, e.g., temperature 1, the fan is set to Slt. Where Ogawa in the combination teaches: "the model predicting unit 46 is configured to calculate the number of rotations for each fan 12a with which the CPU temperatures can be within an allowable range, by predicting a future CPU temperature based on the highest temperature yreal, the average temperature v1, and the largest electric power v2 [par. 0058]" and "the equation (15) defines the allowable range of the number of rotations u of the fan 12a, where Umin and Umax represent the lower limit value and upper limit value of the allowable range, respectively [par. 0133]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention, in light of Tsutsui's teachings, for Ogawa to dynamically control the fans based on various CPU metrics, including a power threshold, for the benefit of reducing power consumed and noise produced by the fans while still allowing the cooling system to adequately cool the CPU.
With regard to claim 7, the combination above teaches the cooling fan control method of claim 6. Tsutsui in the combination further teaches wherein setting comprises, when the current CPU power exceeds the threshold power, setting a rotation speed of the cooling fan based on a result of comparing the future CPU temperature and a threshold temperature (see [fig. 17] where when a CPU temperature is above a threshold, e.g., temperature 3, the fan is set to high. Where Ogawa in the combination teaches: "the model predicting unit 46 is configured to calculate the number of rotations for each fan 12a with which the CPU temperatures can be within an allowable range, by predicting a future CPU temperature based on the highest temperature yreal, the average temperature v1, and the largest electric power v2 [par. 0058]" and "the equation (15) defines the allowable range of the number of rotations u of the fan 12a, where Umin and Umax represent the lower limit value and upper limit value of the allowable range, respectively [par. 0133]" and "the electric power rise rate computing unit 48 calculates the rise rate of the consumed electric power vP of each electronic apparatus 14, and monitors the highest electric power rise rate vp_max which is the highest of these rise rates of vP [par. 0085]").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention, in light of Tsutsui's teachings, for Ogawa to dynamically control the fans based on various CPU metrics, including a power threshold, for the benefit of reducing power consumed and noise produced by the fans while still allowing the cooling system to adequately cool the CPU.
With regard to claim 8, the combination above teaches the cooling fan control method of claim 7. Tsutsui in the combination further teaches wherein setting comprises, when the CPU temperature is less than or equal to the threshold temperature, giving a minimum rotation speed as a rotation speed of the cooling fan (see [fig. 17] where when a CPU temperature is below a threshold, e.g., temperature 1, the fan is set to Slt; where Ogawa in the combination teaches the future CPU temperature).
With regard to claim 9, the combination above teaches the cooling fan control method of claim 8. Tsutsui in the combination further teaches wherein setting comprises, when the future CPU temperature exceeds the threshold temperature, giving an optimal rotation speed corresponding to the future CPU temperature as a rotation speed of the cooling fan (see [fig. 17] where when a CPU temperature is above a threshold, e.g., temperature 3, the fan is set to high; where Ogawa in the combination teaches the future CPU temperature).
Citations of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsushita [U.S. Pub. 2022/0075433] teaches where a microcomputer calculates a predicted CPU ambient temperature which predicts an ambient temperature in the future by using a heat generation amount of a drive, an outside air temperature detected by an outside air temperature sensor, and a CPU ambient temperature detected by a CPU ambient temperature sensor. The microcomputer controls a rotation number of the fan on the basis of the predicted CPU ambient temperature so that a junction temperature of a CPU does not exceed a temperature-specification upper limit value.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT W CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1214. The examiner can normally be reached (M-F) 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/VINCENT WEN-LIANG CHANG/
Examiner
Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119