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
The Amendment filed 06/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 are presented for examination.
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 § 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 of this title, 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (US 2017/0336839) in view of Lovicott (US 2018/0164841).
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 parameter for temperature-based closed loop control of the thermal control system wherein the parameter is associated with a temperature sensor having a temperature closest to a respective maximum temperature for that temperature sensor ([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 the temperature associated with each of the multiple sensors; see also [0025], the sensor data is used to provide closed loop feedback to the system); and
generate a control signal for controlling a speed of the air mover based on the parameter ([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).
However, Ho does not expressly disclose the parameter is a selected temperature measurement selected from the respective temperature measurements; wherein a value of the control signal is determined as a function of the selected temperature measurement.
In the same field of endeavor, Lovicott teaches
the parameter is a selected temperature measurement selected from the respective temperature measurements;
wherein a value of the control signal is determined as a function of the selected temperature measurement (Lovicott Fig. 13, Abstract, [0052, 0028] teaches controlling a rate of an air mover based on a current temperature sensed by a sensor and the maximum component temperature i.e., maximum operating temperature; this is analogous to Ho, which first determines a difference between current temperatures and maximum operating temperatures for multiple sensors, and for the sensor with the smallest difference, the system controls an air mover based on that difference i.e., the difference between the current temperature and the maximum component temperature).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the parameter is a selected temperature measurement selected from the respective temperature measurements; wherein a value of the control signal is determined as a function of the selected temperature measurement as suggested in Lovicott into Ho because Ho and Lovicott pertain to analogous fields of technology. Both Ho and Lovicott pertain to air movers that are controlled based on a current temperature of a sensor and a corresponding maximum operating temperature. Ho teaches controlling an air mover based on the difference between the two i.e., for the sensor where the difference is smallest. Lovicott teaches a similar approach i.e., controlling an air mover based on the individual values of the current temperature and the maximum operating temperature. It would thus be obvious to modify Ho such that, once the sensor with the smallest difference is determined, a corresponding current temperature is selected as a factor to influence the control of the air mover. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Lovicott so that a variety of known methods can be used to control an air mover based on sensor temperature and the corresponding maximum operating temperature e.g., see Lovicott Fig. 13, Abstract, [0052, 0028].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ho and Lovicott teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. The combination of Ho and Lovicott 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 (Ho [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 (Ho [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 Ho [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, the combination of Ho and Lovicott 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. The combination of Ho and Lovicott also teaches
a thermal control system (Ho [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 (Ho [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, the combination of Ho and Lovicott 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. The combination of Ho and Lovicott 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 (Ho [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, the combination of Ho and Lovicott teaches the invention as claimed in claim 7. Claim 8 corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 3, 5 and 7.
Regarding the interpretation of limitations in claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (i.e., "a thermal control system for … and configured to …" in claim 1 and "an output for …" in claim 5), Applicant expressed disagreement with the interpretation. In particular, Applicant appears to argue the following: (1) that the specification makes clear from various embodiments what the thermal system and output refer to, and thus that the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in unwarranted; and (2) assuming the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Examiner's rejection fails in any case to map elements in the prior art to corresponding structures described in the specification.
Regarding point (1), although the specification mentions example embodiments of a thermal control system, it does not appear to specifically provide a definition of the term that would prevent an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For example, in the supporting quotations cited on page 7 of Applicant's reply, the word "may" is often used e.g., "the thermal control system 114 … may comprise a microprocessor, microcontroller …" This appears to indicate that while the term, "thermal control system," may be the cited structures, this is not required and other structures are possible. As noted in MPEP 2181 I, the term, "system" may be understood as a term that amounts to a generic placeholder, which may invoke interpretation under 112(f). In the view of the Examiner, the term, "output for …" can be seen as a generic placeholder as well i.e., it is equivalent to an outputting means.
Regarding point (2), Examiner respectfully disagrees. For example, page 12, lines 6-20 describe an embodiment of the thermal control system as being "any system, device or apparatus configured to receive one or more signals indicative of one or more temperatures … and calculate an air mover driving signal." The prior office action identified such a system in the Ho reference e.g., see Ho [0025]. Page 9 of the specification mentions I/O devices and/or interfaces for communicating with external devices; Ho inherently utilizes such communication interfaces/devices.
It should be noted that if an interpretation under 112(f) is not desired, it can likely be avoided with an amendment of the claim language. For example, although further review may be required, possible amendments could be: "a thermal control system that controls the air mover and performs the following steps …" and "an output device that communicates a control signal …"
Regarding independent claims 1, 3, 5 and 7, the Applicant alleges that the combination of references does not teach the amended limitation of "select a selected temperature measurement from the respective temperature measurements for temperature-based closed loop control of the thermal control system, wherein the selected temperature measurement is associated with a temperature sensor having a temperature closest to a respective maximum temperature for that temperature sensor; and generate a control signal for controlling a speed of the air mover based on the selected temperature measurement, wherein a value of the control signal is determined as a function of the selected temperature measurement." Examiner has therefore rejected claim 1, 3, 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho and Lovicott. Some of Applicant's remarks are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Additionally, Applicant's attorney appears to assert that Ho does not teach (1) "generate a control signal for controlling a speed of the air mover based on a selected temperature measurement," because the fan speed control of Ho is not derived from a measured temperature; (2) "temperature-based closed loop control of the thermal control system"; and (3) "select a selected temperature measurement … for temperature-based closed loop control" because Ho does not teach using a selected temperature measurement as an input to a closed loop control system (see pages 9-11 of the reply).
Regarding (1), Ho teaches selecting a temperature measurement from each sensor for a difference calculation, as noted above. Ho further teaches then controlling a fan speed based on one or those temperature measurements, and a corresponding difference relative to its temperature threshold. Put another way, the fan speed control is based on the least difference, and the least difference is determined based on a measured temperature from a sensor, thus the fan speed control is based on a measured temperature. See also Ho [0040], which notes that fan speed may be dependent on the above calculated difference i.e., the smaller the difference, the greater the fan speed. See also Ho [0039], which notes that the calculated differences determine which fans are controlled.
Regarding (2), Ho [0025] explicitly states that sensors within the system provide closed loop feedback to the system. A simple definition of a closed loop system is that it uses feedback to adjust output, while open loop system does not use feedback. In this respect, the operations described in Ho appear to pertain to a closed loop system.
Regarding (3), every temperature measurement from each sensor is selected i.e., it is selected to be obtained and stored in memory, and it is selected for a particular difference calculation. In the view of the Examiner, when a temperature measurement is selected for a difference calculation, it is serving as an input to the thermal control system of Ho. In other words, in the view of the Examiner, the selecting operation ("select a selected temperature measurement … for temperature-based closed loop control"), as currently written, merely requires that a temperature measurement be selected at some point and be in some way used for the thermal control system of Ho, which Ho describes as a closed loop system. Applicant further argues that claims 2, 4, 6 and 8 are allowable in view of their dependency on claims 1, 9 and 17. Claims 2, 4, 6 and 8 are rejected as being taught by Ho and Lovicott.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nayak (US 2024/0057299) teaches a thermal control system in which air movers are controlled based on sensed temperatures e.g., see Nayak Abstract, [0027].
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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