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 Interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f)
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 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 thermal control system for …" in claim 1; "an output for …" in claim 5.
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 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 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ho (US 2017/0336839).
Regarding claim 1, Ho teaches an information handling system comprising:
a plurality of temperature sensors, each temperature sensor configured to generate a respective temperature measurement (Abstract, [0027-0028, 0030], a device may have multiple temperature sensors, each of which measure temperature of a component);
an air mover configured to drive air to cool the information handling system (Abstract, [0028], the device can include a fan, which may cool a zone including multiple components); and
a thermal control system for controlling the air mover ([0025], a thermal management system, including a processor, control fan speed based on temperature readings; the thermal management system forms a closed feedback loop) and configured to:
receive the respective temperature measurements from the plurality of temperature sensors ([0032], the system receives measured temperatures from the sensors);
select a selected temperature measurement from the respective temperature measurements for temperature-based closed loop control of the thermal control system ([0032-0033], the system selects each temperature measurement and determines a difference between it and a predetermined temperature e.g., a maximum operating temperature for a corresponding component; this is done for temperature for each of the multiple sensors); and
generate a control signal for controlling a speed of the air mover based on the selected temperature measurement ([0034-0035, 0039, 0040], Table 1, the system compares the determined differences for all the sensors/components; the difference are ranked; a fan is operated based on the smallest difference; for example, Table 1 describes a zone with multiple sensors and a single fan; as noted in [0036, 0039, 0040], the speed of the fan is modified based on the sensor with the smallest difference).
Regarding claim 2, Ho teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Ho also teaches wherein the thermal control system is further configured to:
compare each of the respective temperature measurements to a respective maximum temperature to determine a respective temperature margin for each of the respective temperature measurements ([0032-0033], the system selects each temperature measurement and determines a difference between it and a predetermined temperature e.g., a maximum operating temperature for a corresponding component; this is done for temperature for each of the multiple sensors);
select a minimum temperature margin from all of the respective temperature margins; and
generate the control signal based on the minimum temperature margin ([0034-0035, 0039, 0040], Table 1, the system compares the determined differences for all the sensors/components; the difference are ranked; a fan is operated based on the smallest difference; for example, Table 1 describes a zone with multiple sensors and a single fan; as noted in [0036, 0039, 0040], the speed of the fan is modified based on the sensor with the smallest difference).
Regarding claim 3, the claim corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 4, Ho teaches the invention as claimed in claim 3. Claim 4 also corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 5, the claim corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. Ho also teaches
a thermal control system ([0025], a thermal management system, including a processor, control fan speed based on temperature readings; the thermal management system forms a closed feedback loop) comprising:
an output for communicating a control signal for regulating an air speed of an air mover; and logic ([0036, 0039, 0040], fan operation and speed is regulated; inherently there is an output that generates a control signal for that; inherently, the above thermal management system implements logic to perform the operations of the invention; see also [0018], which describes memory and a processor).
Regarding claim 6, Ho teaches the invention as claimed in claim 5. Claim 6 also corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 7, the claim corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. Ho also teaches an article of manufacture comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and
computer-executable instructions carried on the computer-readable medium, the instructions readable by a processor, the instructions, when read and executed, for
causing the processor to perform operations ([0025], a thermal management system, including a processor, control fan speed based on temperature readings; the thermal management system forms a closed feedback loop; inherently, the above thermal management system uses instructions to perform the operations of the invention; see also [0018], which describes memory and a processor).
Regarding claim 8, Ho teaches the invention as claimed in claim 7. Claim 8 corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lovicott (US 2018/0164841) teaches determining the rate of an air mover based on operating temperature e.g., see Lovicott Abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YOON whose telephone number is (408)918-7581. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am to 5 pm ET Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ERIC J YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights