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 Objections
Claims 1, 9 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a heatsink” in line 3. It appears the limitation should read --the heatsink-- for the correct antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites “a heatsink” in line 6. It appears the limitation should read --the heatsink-- for the correct antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites “a heatsink” in line 7. It appears the limitation should read --the heatsink-- for the correct antecedent basis. 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 7, 9-14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 102200816B).
With respect to claim 1, Li et al. teaches in Fig. 1 a method for removing debris (i.e. automatic dust removal; Abstract) from a heatsink (11) comprising: receiving, by a debris detection and dislodging module (a module of a CPU with preforms the steps of Fig. 10 and dislodging triggering operations), one or more sensor readings (via first and second measuring devices; [0023-0025], [0102]) that exceed a configurable threshold at a heatsink (11) of a component (i.e. a computer) to be cooled (i.e. a threshold thermal resistance; Abstract; note: the examiner considers the threshold as a programmed data field, thereby reading on “configurable”); in response to the received sensor readings (via the first and second measuring devices), enabling, by the debris detection and dislodging module (the module of the CPU performing the automatic dust removal), a controller (CPU) to activate a dislodging apparatus (i.e. a dust removing device; Fig. 1) to remove debris in fins [0075] of the heatsink (11; as Li et al. discloses dust builds within the fins of the heatsink 11) in the component (i.e. computer) to be cooled; and sweeping [0067], by the dislodging apparatus (Fig. 1), the debris in the fins (i.e. the dust therebetween the fins) of the component (i.e. the computer) to be cooled until the one or more sensor readings (via the first and second measuring devices) returns to an expected level below the threshold (i.e. the threshold thermal resistance; as once the threshold is no longer triggered, the automatic program is stopped; [0104]), and wherein coolant (i.e. air from a fan) flowing through a goldplate assembly (note: insofar as active steps recited, the heatsink and it’s fin assembly is capable of being gold-plated; as the limitation does not distinguish the claimed method steps from the prior art, as the automatic operation disclosed in Li et al. is capable of being performed when coolant flows through a goldplate assembly) in the heatsink (11) carries the debris out of the fins of the heatsink (as the sweeping motion dislodges the dust and the air carries the dust out of the fins).
With respect to claim 9, Li et al. teaches a computer program product (as indirectly taught in Fig. 11) for removing debris from a heatsink (11), the computer program product comprising a non-transitory tangible storage device having program code (as indirectly taught in Fig. 11, as the instructions operate in a computer environment) embodied therewith, the program code executable by a processor (CPU) of a computer to perform the rejected method of claim 1.
With respect to claims 2, 10, and 17 Li et al. teaches in Fig. 1 the method wherein the debris detection and dislodging module (i.e. the module of the CPU) generates a notification (i.e. a prompt) when a filter requires cleaning (as paragraph [0130-0131] prompting a user dust has accumulated and automatically requires cleaning; note: insofar as what is structurally recited the generation of the notification taught in Li et al. is capable of indicating “a filter requires cleaning” as the sensed conditions are capable of indicating dust as created a blockage of airflow).
With respect to claim 6, Li et al. teaches in Fig. 1 the method wherein the dislodging apparatus (seen in Fig. 1) performs at least one sweep of the component to be cooled (via brush 14), each of the sweepings beginning at a position (nearest 12) with an action of rotating downward (as transmission 13 rotates, allowing the brush to drive downward away from a motor 12) to position parallel members (i.e. the bristles of the brush 14) between the fins of the heatsink (11) and drawing the dislodging apparatus (Fig. 1) through the component (i.e. the computer) to be cooled before returning (via the rotating shaft 13) to the beginning position (near 12).
With respect to claims 7, 14 and 19, Li et al. teaches in Fig. 1 the method wherein the dislodging apparatus (seen in Fig. 1) performs more at least one sweep (via brush 14) of the component (i.e. the computer) to be cooled, each of the sweepings being an action of moving (via the rotation of shaft 13 via motor 12) through the component (i.e. the computer) to be cooled from an initial position (defined by motor 12) until the full area between each of the fins (of 11) of the component (i.e. computer) to be cooled is swept before returning to the initial position (the position nearest motor 12).
With respect to claims 11 and 18, Li et al. teaches in Fig. 1 the computer program product (as indirectly taught), further comprising one or more sensors [0025-0025], wherein the sensors include different sensors that measure temperature and power [0023-0025].
With respect to claim 12, Li et al. teaches in Fig. 1 the computer program product (as indirectly taught) wherein a duration of the sweeping is a preset amount of time (as the duration of the sweeping is structurally defined by the physical structure of the rotation shaft and the preset amount of time it takes the brush to sweep).
With respect to claim 13, Li et al. teaches in Fig. 1 the computer program product (as indirectly taught) wherein the dislodging apparatus (as seen in Fig. 1) performs more than one sweep (via brush 14; as the brush makes multiple sweeps from a starting point, to a furthest point, and back to the starting point) of the component (i.e. the computer) to be cooled.
With respect to claim 16, Li et al. teaches in Fig. 1 a computer system removing debris from a heatsink (i.e. automatic dust removal of a computer system; Abstract), comprising: one or more processors (CPU); a memory (for storing Fig. 11) coupled to at least one of the processors (CPU); a set of computer program instructions (Fig. 11) stored in the memory (as indirectly taught) and executed by at least one of the processors (CPU) in order to perform actions of: receiving, by a debris detection and dislodging module (a module of a CPU with preforms the steps of Fig. 10 and dislodging triggering operations), one or more sensor readings (via first and second measuring devices; [0023-0025], [0102]) that exceed a configurable threshold at a heatsink (11) of a component (i.e. a computer) to be cooled (i.e. a threshold thermal resistance; Abstract; note: the examiner considers the threshold as a programmed data field, thereby reading on “configurable”); in response to the received sensor readings (via the first and second measuring devices), enabling, by the debris detection and dislodging module (the module of the CPU performing the automatic dust removal), a controller (a portion of the CPU) to activate a dislodging apparatus (i.e. a dust removing device; Fig. 1) to remove debris in fins [0075] of the heatsink (11; as Li et al. discloses dust builds within the fins of the heatsink 11) in the component (i.e. computer) to be cooled; and sweeping [0067], by the dislodging apparatus (Fig. 1), the debris in the fins (i.e. the dust therebetween the fins) of the component (i.e. the computer) to be cooled until the one or more sensor readings (via the first and second measuring devices) returns to an expected level below the threshold (i.e. the threshold thermal resistance; as once the threshold is no longer triggered, the automatic program is stopped; [0104]), and wherein coolant (i.e. air from a fan) flowing through a goldplate assembly (note: insofar as active steps recited, the heatsink and it’s fin assembly is capable of being gold-plated; as the limitation does not distinguish the claimed method steps from the prior art, as the automatic operation disclosed in Li et al. is capable of being performed when coolant flows through a goldplate assembly) in the heatsink (11) carries the debris out of the fins of the heatsink (as the sweeping motion dislodges the dust and the air carries the dust out of the fins).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 102200816B) in view of Liang et al. (CN 116447777A).
With respect to claim 3, Li et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 1, but remains silent regarding a duration of the sweeping is a configurable count of jobs completed within a configurable window amount of time, wherein a first event triggers starting a timer and accumulating a counter of jobs, and wherein the counter and timer are reset to zero when the time ends without the configurable count of jobs completing.
Liang et al. teaches a similar method that includes a duration of the sweeping (i.e. sweeping times) is a configurable count of jobs (i.e. a number of sweeping time) completed within a configurable window amount of time (i.e. a predefined time length of a fan), wherein a first event (i.e. a threshold crossing) triggers starting a timer and accumulating a counter of jobs (as indirectly taught, as time and the number of sweeping times is tracked), and wherein the counter and timer (i.e. as indirectly taught) are reset to zero (i.e. for restarting to record) when the time ends without the configurable count of jobs completing (as Liang et al. teaches clearing the time and indirectly the number of sweeps without the configurable count of jobs completing, insofar as how “completing” is structurally defined).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method of Li et al. to include the control logic taught in Liang et al. because Liang et al. teaches such a modification allows for a timelier execution of dust removal; thereby improving the overall operation of the automated dust removal operation in Li et al.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 102200816B).
With respect to claim 4, Li et al. teaches wherein a sweeping is triggered based on extracted sensor data (via the measured sensors; [0025-0027], [0102]) and utilization data (i.e. power data; [0027]) of the component to be cooled (i.e. of the computer) exceeding a threshold [0091].
Li et al. remains silent regarding the threshold being a percentage.
It has been held that it would have been obvious to try from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(E)
In this instance, a person having ordinary skill in the art having a degree in engineering, has the capability to perform the engineering practice of statistical analysis using a set of collected data to derive a threshold percentage.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Le et al. to employ common engineering practice of utilizing a threshold percentage, because such a threshold aids in triggering automated maintenance controls.
With respect to claim 5, Li et al. teaches a threshold (Abstract).
Li et al. remains silent regarding the threshold being a utilization threshold defined as a percent deviation from configured preset sensor readings.
It has been held that it would have been obvious to try from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(E)
In this instance, a person having ordinary skill in the art having a degree in engineering, has the capability to perform the engineering practice of statistical analysis using a set of collected data to derive a utilization threshold percentage defined as a percent deviation from configured preset sensor readings.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Le et al. to employ common engineering practice of deriving a utilization threshold percentage defined as a percent deviation from configured preset sensor readings, because such a threshold aids in triggering automated maintenance controls.
Claim(s) 8, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 102200816B) in view of North et al. (2019/0235982A1).
With respect to claims 8, 15 and 20 Li et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claims 1, 9 and 16 but remains silent regarding the debris detection and dislodging module detecting a difference between a baseline value and a configurable threshold to determine debris is present and a dislodge event is required.
North et al. teaches a similar method including control logic that detects a difference between a baseline value and a configurable threshold ([0010]; [i]n such an alternate embodiment, the monitored absolute pressure difference (ΔP) sensed along the airflow path may be compared to a pre-defined critical absolute (ΔPc) value to determine existence of an impeded cooling air flow condition) to determine debris is present and a dislodge event is required (s510).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the control logic of Li et al. such that a difference between a baseline value and the threshold is used to determine dust is present and brushing is required; as such a modification protects the computer itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Landers, JR et al. (2010/0169046) which teaches identifying blockages in a heat sink.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights