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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action has been issued in response to amendment filed 03/04/2026. Applicant's arguments have been carefully and fully considered; and they are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending and are ready for examination.
Rejections not based on Prior Art
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the previous Specification Objections has been withdrawn.
Rejections based on Prior Art
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(s) 1, 11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US20190090382A1 -hereinafter Cho) in view of Ragupathi et al. (US20180004787A1 -hereinafter Ragupathi) in view of Ragupathi et al. (US20170311477A1 -hereinafter Ragupathi77).
Regarding Claim 1, Chassis teaches an information handling system, comprising:
a chassis…; and (see [0003]; Cho: “A chassis is a mechanical rack or enclosure capable of providing shared power, networking, and/or management infrastructure to a plurality of IHS components, such as server blades, input/output (I/O) modules, storage devices, etc.”)
a plurality of sleds (see [0004]; Cho: “Multiple (or all) sleds in a chassis”), each sled including a processor (see [0027]; Cho: “BMC 175 may include a processor”) and having a baseboard management controller (BMC) (see [0028]; Cho: “BMC 175 may include or may be an integral part of a Baseboard Management Controller (BMC)”), wherein each BMC is configured to 1) determine a configuration of the associated sled (see [0031]; Cho: “Display 205 may provide certain status and configuration information regarding the sled or its various components”),
However, Cho does not explicitly teach:
…having an embedded controller configured to store a sled thermal characteristics table;
2) match the configuration to a first entry of the sled thermal characteristics table, 3) determine whether a first maximum ambient temperature field of the first entry has a first maximum ambient temperature value or a first indication to calculate a second maximum ambient temperature value, 4) when the maximum ambient temperature field has the first maximum ambient temperature value, ascribe the first maximum ambient temperature value to the operation of the associated sled, and 5) when the maximum ambient temperature field has the first indication, to a) receive an available airflow value from the embedded controller, b) determine the second maximum ambient temperature value based upon the available airflow, and c) ascribe the second maximum ambient temperature value to the operation of the associated sled, wherein the sled thermal characteristics table defines a minimum airflow per processor.
Ragupathi from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
…having an embedded controller configured to store a sled thermal characteristics table; (see [0003]; Ragupathi: “The thermal module may have access to a table with configuration values corresponding to various components validated in the information handling system.”)
2) match the configuration to a first entry of the sled thermal characteristics table (see [0007]; Ragupathi: “The method may include determining whether the add-in card was previously defined by matching the device information against a table, and searching the table based on the determination that the add-in card was not previously defined.”), 3) determine whether a first maximum ambient temperature field of the first entry has a first maximum ambient temperature value or a first indication to calculate a second maximum ambient temperature value (see [0032]; Ragupathi: “Table 204 may include an entry 208 for a particular device.” See [0007]: “The method may include determining whether the add-in card is supported and applying a thermal tier. Support for the add-in card may be determined by finding a match in the table. The thermal tier may be associated with the match in the table and may be based on the determination that the add-in card is supported.”), 4) when the maximum ambient temperature field has the first maximum ambient temperature value, ascribe the first maximum ambient temperature value to the operation of the associated sled (see [0051]; Ragupathi: “if the matching cards have different thermal tiers, the device similarity unit may determine which thermal tier has the greatest thermal capability, or which thermal tier is the highest, and then may apply that thermal tier to the thermal configuration at 436.”), and 5) when the maximum ambient temperature field has the first indication (see [0051]; Ragupathi: “if a match is found, method 400 may proceed to 434.”), to a) receive an available airflow value from the embedded controller (see [0051]; Ragupathi: “At 434, it may be determined whether the matching PCI cards or entries have the same thermal tier.”), b) determine the second maximum ambient temperature value based upon the available airflow (see [0007]; Ragupathi: “The thermal tier may be associated with the match in the table and may be based on the determination that the add-in card is supported.” See [0051]: “If the matching cards have the same thermal tier”), and c) ascribe the second maximum ambient temperature value to the operation of the associated sled. (see [0051]; Ragupathi: “If the matching cards have the same thermal tier, that common thermal tier may be applied to the thermal configuration at 438.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Cho to include Ragupathi’s features of having an embedded controller configured to store a sled thermal characteristics table; matching the configuration to a first entry of the sled thermal characteristics table, determining whether a first maximum ambient temperature field of the first entry has a first maximum ambient temperature value or a first indication to calculate a second maximum ambient temperature value, when the maximum ambient temperature field has the first maximum ambient temperature value, ascribing the first maximum ambient temperature value to the operation of the associated sled, and when the maximum ambient temperature field has the first indication, to receive an available airflow value from the embedded controller, b) determine the second maximum ambient temperature value based upon the available airflow, and ascribe the second maximum ambient temperature value to the operation of the associated sled. Doing so would achieve energy savings, reduced noise, and/or improved efficiency for the information handling system. (Ragupathi, [0030])
However, it does not explicitly teach: wherein the sled thermal characteristics table defines a minimum airflow per processor.
Ragupathi77 from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: wherein the sled thermal characteristics table defines a minimum airflow per processor. (see [0042]; Ragupathi77: “At step 310, the central information management console 220 reads the set volumetric airflow limit for each rack 210 in environment 200 or for each group, for each group of racks 210 or group of information handling systems 100.” See [0028]: “In certain embodiments, each information handling system 110 may be contained within a suitable enclosure, for example, a chassis 116 where the chassis 116 may include a front panel (not shown) and a back panel (not shown).” See [0029]: “In particular embodiments, information handling system 100 includes a processor 102.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Cho and Ragupathi to include Ragupathi77’s features of defining a minimum airflow per processor. Doing so would maximize the utilization of the available space within the installation environment to decrease costs while supplying efficient and sufficient airflow. (Ragupathi77, [00004])
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Cho, Ragupathi, and Ragupathi77 as discussed connection with claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Cho, Ragupathi, and Ragupathi77 as discussed connection with claim 1.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Ragupathi in view of Ragupathi77 in view of Lovicott et al. (US20180164841A1 -hereinafter Lovicott).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Cho, Ragupathi, and Ragupathi77 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Ragupathi further teaches wherein each BMC is further configured to 1) match the configuration to a second entry of the sled thermal characteristics table (see [0046]; Ragupathi: “Applying the configuration to the system may include inserting an additional entry to a table”. See [0037]: “Thermal module 308 may collect this information associated with the add-in card and access table 204 to find a matching entry, which may indicate that the device is supported.”), 2) determine that a second maximum ambient temperature field of the second entry has a third maximum ambient temperature value (see [0038]; Ragupathi: “Thermal module 308 may use a scaling factor associated with the device to determine which thermal tier to use.”), …and 4) ascribe the third maximum ambient temperature value to the operation of the associated sled. (see [0040]; Ragupathi: “if the thermal tiers are different, device similarity unit 302 may obtain the maximum thermal tier from the matching set and apply the maximum thermal tier. A maximum thermal tier may correspond to the thermal tier requiring the greatest cooling capability.”)
However, it does not explicitly teach: 3) determine that the third maximum ambient temperature value is lower than both the first and second maximum ambient temperature values,
Lovicott from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches 3) determine that the third maximum ambient temperature value is lower than both the first and second maximum ambient temperature values, (see Lovicott: “With more than one component that can have different component maximum temperatures, the current temperature set point 806 can correspond to the lowest such maximum temperature.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Cho, Ragupathi, and Ragupathi77 to include Lovicott’s features of determining that the third maximum ambient temperature value is lower than both the first and second maximum ambient temperature values. Doing so would reduce power consumption and extend the service life of the system. (Lovicott, [0003])
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Cho, Ragupathi, and Ragupathi77 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Ragupathi further teaches wherein each BMC is further configured to 1) match the configuration to a second entry of the sled thermal characteristics table (see [0046]; Ragupathi: “Applying the configuration to the system may include inserting an additional entry to a table”. See [0037]: “Thermal module 308 may collect this information associated with the add-in card and access table 204 to find a matching entry, which may indicate that the device is supported.”), 2) determine that a second maximum ambient temperature field of the second entry has a second indication to calculate a third maximum ambient temperature value (see [0040]; Ragupathi: “If device similarity unit 302 locates more than one match, the thermal tiers of the matches may be compared.”), 3) determine the third maximum ambient temperature value based upon the available airflow (see [0040]; Ragupathi: “If device similarity unit 302 locates more than one match, the thermal tiers of the matches may be compared.”), …and 5) ascribe the third maximum ambient temperature value to the operation of the associated sled. (see [0040]; Ragupathi: “If the thermal tiers are the same, the common thermal tier may be applied.”)
However, it does not explicitly teach: 4) determine that the third maximum ambient temperature value is lower than both the first and second maximum ambient temperature values,
Lovicott from the same or similar field of endeavor 4) determine that the third maximum ambient temperature value is lower than both the first and second maximum ambient temperature values, (see Lovicott: “With more than one component that can have different component maximum temperatures, the current temperature set point 806 can correspond to the lowest such maximum temperature.”)
The same motivation to combine Cho, Ragupathi, Ragupathi77, and Lovicott a set forth for Claim 2 equally applies to Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Cho, Ragupathi, Ragupathi77, and Lovicott as discussed connection with claim 2.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Cho, Ragupathi, Ragupathi77, and Lovicott as discussed connection with claim 3.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Ragupathi in view of Ragupathi77 in view of Misra et al. (US20230273821A1 -hereinafter Misra).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Cho, Ragupathi, and Ragupathi77 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach: wherein the first maximum ambient temperature value is based upon a worst case mixing of sleds in the chassis.
Misra from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the first maximum ambient temperature value is based upon a worst case mixing of sleds in the chassis. (see [0053]; Misra: “the static metric corresponds to a worst case cooling need for the application (the job is assumed to consume a maximum power for the job and dissipate a maximum amount of heat for the job).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Cho, Ragupathi, and Ragupathi77 to include Misra’s features of the first maximum ambient temperature value is based upon a worst case mixing of sleds in the chassis. Doing so would keep the cooling systems operating in one or more of the realms having lower performance and cost than another one of the realms. (Misra, [Abstract).
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Cho, Ragupathi, Ragupathi77, and Misra as discussed connection with claim 4.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Ragupathi in view of Ragupathi77 in view of Misra in view of Song et al. (US20180035572A1 -hereinafter Song).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Cho, Ragupathi, Ragupathi77, and Misra teaches all the limitations of claim 4 above; however, it does not explicitly teach: wherein the available airflow for each sled is determined based upon an airflow impedance for each sled.
Song from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the available airflow for each sled is determined based upon an airflow impedance for each sled. (see [0018]; Song: “or a selected fan and a selected fan speed, resulting airflow is related to cooling zone impedance (i.e., resistance to airflow).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Cho, Ragupathi, Ragupathi77, and Misra to include Song’s features of determining the available airflow for each sled based upon an airflow impedance for each sled. Doing so would avoid degrade system reliability due to overheating and improve energy efficiency of a data center. (Song, [0002] and [0010])
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Cho, Ragupathi, Ragupathi77, Misra, and Song teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above, Song further teaches wherein the airflow impedance for each sled is based upon the configuration of the associated sled. (see [0015]; Song: “Changes in the component(s) and/or physical arrangement may correspond to changes in impedance of the cooling zone and corresponding changes in cooling zone volumetric airflow produced by the fans. Thus, replacing a first rack element with a second, different rack element may change the impedance of the cooling zone, and the relationship between fan speed and Q.”)
The same motivation to combine Cho, Ragupathi, Ragupathi77, Misra, and Song a set forth for Claim 5 equally applies to Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Cho, Ragupathi, Ragupathi77, Misra, and Song as discussed connection with claim 5.
Regarding Claim 16, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Cho, Ragupathi, Ragupathi77, Misra, and Song as discussed connection with claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Ragupathi in view of Ragupathi77 in view of Misra in view of Song in view of Messick et al. (US20210048875A1 -hereinafter Messick).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Cho, Ragupathi, Ragupathi77, Misra, and Song teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above; however, however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the configuration of each sled includes a processor thermal design power (TDP) for the processors installed in the associated sled.
Messick from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the configuration of each sled includes a processor thermal design power (TDP) for the processors installed in the associated sled. (see [0031]; Messick: “Future generations of modular compute nodes have increasing power demands due to the significant increase of central processing unit (CPU) thermal design power (TDP), peak power, and platform turbo mode power levels … As an example, a chassis processor sled connector from a PSU to a processor sled may have a maximum sustained power delivery value designed for previous generations of processors, which may be or may become insufficient to meet the rising trend of processor sled power demands.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Cho, Ragupathi, Ragupathi77, Misra, and Song to include Messick’s features of the configuration of each sled includes a processor thermal design power (TDP) for the processors installed in the associated sled. Doing so would quickly and efficiently process the information. (Messick, [0002])
Regarding Claim 17, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Cho, Ragupathi, Ragupathi77, Misra, Song, and Messick as discussed connection with claim 7.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Ragupathi in view of Ragupathi77 in view of Misra in view of Song in view of Messick in view of Nachimuthu et al. (US20180150372A1 -hereinafter Nachimuthu).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Cho, Ragupathi, Ragupathi77, Misra, Song, and Messick teaches all the limitations of claim 7 above; however, however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the configuration of each sled further includes a memory type for dual in-line memory modules (DIMMs) installed in the associated sled.
Nachimuthu from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the configuration of each sled further includes a memory type for dual in-line memory modules (DIMMs) installed in the associated sled. (see [0116]; Nachimuthu: “the hardware manifest specifies at least one of a processor count, a processor model, dual in-line memory module (DIMM) types, population locations, capacity, or I/O devices.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Cho, Ragupathi, Ragupathi77, Misra, Song, and Messick to include Nachimuthu’s features of a memory type for dual in-line memory modules (DIMMs) installed in the associated sled. Doing so would increase in device performance. (Nachimuthu, [0040])
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Cho, Ragupathi, Ragupathi77, Misra, Song, Messick, and Nachimuthu teaches all the limitations of claim 8 above, Nachimuthu further teaches wherein the configuration of each sled further includes a number of processors installed in the associated sled and a DIMM size of the DIMMs installed in the associated sled. (see [0029]; Nachimuthu: “processing components such as the processors are located on a top side of a sled while near memory, such as DIMMs, are located on a bottom side of the sled”)
The same motivation to combine Cho, Ragupathi, Ragupathi77, Misra, Song, Messick, and Nachimuthu a set forth for Claim 8 equally applies to Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 18, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Cho, Ragupathi, Ragupathi77, Misra, Song, Messick, and Nachimuthu as discussed connection with claim 8.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Ragupathi in view of Ragupathi77 in view of Misra in view of Song in view of Messick in view of Nachimuthu in view of Rahardjo et al. (US20200134183A1 -hereinafter Rahardjo).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Cho, Ragupathi, Ragupathi77, Misra, Song, Messick, and Nachimuthu teaches all the limitations of claim 9 above; however, however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the configuration of each sled further includes a backplane slot count, a storage drive count, and a storage drive type.
Rahardjo from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the configuration of each sled further includes a backplane slot count (see [0017]; Rahardjo: “The sleds 105 a-n, 115 a-n may be individually coupled to chassis 100 via connectors that correspond to the bays provided by the chassis 100 and that physically and electrically couple an individual sled to a backplane 160… In various embodiments, backplane 160 may include various additional components, such as cables, wires, midplanes, backplanes, connectors, expansion slots, and multiplexers.”), a storage drive count (see [0020]; Rahardjo: “Each of the individual storage sleds 115 a-n may include various different numbers and types of storage devices.”), and a storage drive type. (see [0020]; Rahardjo: “storage sleds 115 a-n may include SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) magnetic disk drives, SATA (Serial Advanced Technology Attachment) magnetic disk drives, solid-state drives (SSDs) and other types of storage drives in various combinations.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Cho, Ragupathi, Ragupathi77, Misra, Song, Messick, and Nachimuthu to include Rahardjo’s features of including a backplane slot count, a storage drive count, and a storage drive type. Doing so would provide efficiency improvements and supporting greater computational loads. (Rahardjo, [0015])
Claims 19 contain similar limitations to those in claims 9 and 10 are rejected using the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejection(s) of the independent claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive because of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pouchak (US6549826B1) discloses determining either a minimum allowed airflow value based on the stored relationship between the airflow signal and an airflow value.
Stewart (US8982554B2) discloses limiting the circulation of airflow (e.g., hot airflow) through empty receiving bays of the rack upon removal of computing devices from the receiving bays.
Song (US10512196B2) discloses determine a cooling zone volumetric airflow based, at least in part, on the selected model.
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 VI N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1108. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, ROBERT FENNEMA can be reached at (571) 272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/V.N.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights