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 .
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, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Eligibility Step 1 (MPEP 2106. 3, subsection II): The claims, after reviewing the entire application disclosure, considered as a whole, are determined to be directed to one of the statutory category (processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter): A method/device/medium.
Eligibility Step 2A (MPEP 2106. 4, subsection II):
Prong One: The claims recite the limitation of estimating the flow rate of the heat medium. This limitation is analyzed including concepts directed to “mathematical concepts” that falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a) Abstract Ideas: The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: Mathematical concepts, Certain methods of organizing human activity, Mental processes). As a result, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Prong Two: The additional steps/actions/elements recited in the claims:
- acquiring a calorific value, a first temperature, and a second temperature (Mere data gathering – obtaining information (MPEP 2106.05(g));
- flowing the heat medium from the first module to the second module (Insignificant pre/post solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
When viewed in combination of as a whole, the recited additional steps/actions/elements do no more than add insignificant extra-solution to the judicial exception. As a result, these additional steps/actions/elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Eligibility Step 2B (MPEP 2106. 5: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more):
The additional steps/actions/elements recited in the claims, acquiring a calorific value and temperatures, and flowing the heat medium to cool the modules, are well known in the field (as evidenced by the prior art cited in the 103 rejection below), do not add an inventive concept to the claim because they do is no more than adding insignificant pre/post-solution activities to the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (US 9632549) in view of Sharma et al. (US 2004/0141542).
Regarding to claims 1, 9-10:
Kubota discloses a flow-rate monitoring device comprising:
one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to (FIG. 3: Service Processor 40, Non-volatile memory 42):
acquire a calorific value of a first module (FIG. 3: The heat generation amount from the power meter 72 reads on the claimed calorific value), a first temperature that is a temperature of a heat generation member of the first module (FIG. 2: The leftmost temperature sensor 36 provides the temperature of the first module 34a), and a second temperature that is a temperature of the heat generation member of a second module (FIG. 2: The middle temperature sensor 36 provides the temperature of the second module 34c), wherein the first module and the second module are included in a plurality of modules mounted on an information processing device (FIG. 2, element 32A), and wherein the each module includes an electronic circuit board and a cooling member, and wherein a heat medium discharged from the cooling member of the first module is supplied to the second module (FIG. 2: The cooling member includes the coolant flowpath 22, wherein the coolant flows to cool the first module 34a, then flows to cool to the second module 34c sequentially) ; and
estimate a flow rate of the heat medium supplied to the first module based on the calorific value of the first module and the first temperature (FIG. 9, step S906: Calculate flow rate u from Q (the heat generation amount) and Ts (the temperature of the module 34a).
Kubota however does not teach estimating the flow rate of the heat medium also based on the second temperature.
Sharma et al. discloses a cooling system in a data center comprising electronic component modules as heat generation members (FIG. 1, elements 108, 110, 112, 114) and temperature sensors (FIG. 2, elements 212, 214, 216) for measuring the temperature of the electronic component modules respectively (paragraph [0099]), wherein the cooling system drives a cooling fluid to cool the electronic component modules in a flow rate based on the temperature from all temperature sensors (FIG. 3A: The cooling fluid flow rate (steps 310 and 312) is based on the sensed component temperatures (step 304)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kubota’s flow rate estimation of the cooling fluid to be also based on the second temperature or based on the temperature from all modules, in other words, as disclosed by Sharma et al. to ensure all electronic component modules to operate in a desired range of temperature (FIG. 3A).
Regarding to claim 2: wherein the one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: when the heat medium discharged from the cooling member of the first module
passes through a pipe and is supplied to the cooling member of the second module in an electronic device array showing a configuration in which the first module and the second module are connected in series by the pipe, the estimation means estimates estimate the flow rate of the heat medium
flowing in the electronic device array for each of the electronic device arrays (Kubota: FIG. 2 shows the first module 34a and the second module 34c are in series respect to the flow of the coolant).
Regarding to claim 7: wherein the first module and the second module are devices having an identical calorific value, and the one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to acquire a calorific value acquired (FIG. 3, element 40).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (US 9632549) in view of Sharma et al. (US 2004/0141542), and further in view of Nakamura (US 2020/0064088).
Kubota, as modified, discloses the claimed invention as discussed above except further comprising: wherein the one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: an abnormality detection means configured to detect occurrence of an abnormality based on the estimated flow rate, wherein when the estimated flow rate is less than a predetermined threshold, the abnormality detection means detects detect that an abnormality has occurred in the electronic device array having the flow rate less than the predetermined threshold.
Nakaruma discloses a cooling system for providing a cooling fluid to cool a system comprising a plurality of modules (FIG. 1, elements 20-1 to 20-N), the cooling system comprises an abnormality determiner (FIG. 4, element 103) for determining an abnormality based on the flow rate of the cooling fluid when it is less than a threshold (FIG. 4, element 102. Paragraphs [0058]-[0059], [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kubota’s cooling system, as modified, to include an abnormality determiner for being able to determine an abnormality in the component modules based on the flow rate of the cooling fluid as disclosed by Nakaruma (FIG. 4, element 102. Paragraphs [0058]-[0059], [0065]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding to claim 4: The primary reasons for the indication of the allowability of the claim is the inclusions therein, in combination as currently claimed, of the limitation that wherein the one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: when a plurality of the electronic device arrays are mounted on the information processing device, detect that an abnormality has occurred in an electronic device array having a different estimated flow rate when there is an electronic device array having a different estimated flow rate from other electronic device arrays among the plurality of electronic device arrays is neither disclosed nor taught by the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Regarding to claim 5: The primary reasons for the indication of the allowability of the claim is the inclusions therein, in combination as currently claimed, of the limitation that wherein the one or more processors configured to execute the instructions when it is detected that an abnormality has occurred in the electronic device array, acquire a calorific value of the module included in the information processing device, and specify the module in which an abnormality has occurred based on an acquired calorific value is neither disclosed nor taught by the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Claim 6 is allowed because they depend directly/indirectly on claim 5.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853