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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. The action is responsive to the communications filed on 7/23/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1-3, 15, 17-20 are amended. Claim 1, 15, 19 are independent claims. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Summary of claims
3. Claims 1-20 are pending,
Claims 1-3, 15, 17-20 are amended,
Claims 1, 15, 19 are independent claims,
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Remarks
4. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 7/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argued on pages 6-7 that MacDonald and Bawa did not teach the newly added features of independent claim 1, such as, “cooling device controller is configured to control operations of the cooling device in cooling the digital processor using the program workload hints instead of processor temperature.” Specifically, Applicant argued MacDonald controls operation of its cooling system based on thermal information, and Bawa controls cooling based on information on heat load, neither reference disclosed controlling the cooling device using program workload hints instead of processor temperature. Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that, although claims of issued patents are interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed. An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Specifically, the present application discloses an indirect cooling device temperature control by workload hints instead of temperature (Nishi Specification [0035]), that is, the temperature control is conducted according to workload hints information, not the temperature value itself. In MacDonald, temperature control is conducted based on workload anticipation (MacDonald: [0023]), temperature prediction is determined based on monitoring of the CPU density factor (MacDonald: [0024]), and the target cooling temperature can be dynamically set based on workload data (MacDonald: [0062]), that is, MacDonald’s temperature control is using anticipated/predicted workload data. In Bawa, the operation of blower fan is controlled based on the heat load data (Bawa: [0268]), and the heat load data includes predicted heat load which is determined using a machine-learning model (Bawa: [0272]), that is, Bawa’s cooling device control is conducted based on heat load including predicted heat load data. Accordingly, both MacDonald and Bawa teach using anticipated/predicted workload data to do temperature control before the workload is occurring, in other words, before the future temperature data is detected, and the cooling device control/adjustment is made not based on the sensed temperature data itself.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark MacDonald et al (US Publication 20200363104 A1, hereinafter MacDonald), and in view of Ritu Bawa et al (US Publication 20230337406 A1, hereinafter Bawa).
As for independent claim 1 MacDonald discloses: An electronic apparatus, comprising: a digital processor; a cooling device in thermal communication with the digital processor (Abstract, a computing device includes a processor, a water block, a thermoelectric cooler, and a thermal space transformer); and a cooling device controller electrically coupled to the digital processor and cooling device ([0035], dynamic cooling and condensation control is implemented using a thermoelectric cooling (TEC) controller for controlling the voltage or cooling power of the TEC 114), wherein the digital processor is configured to output program workload [hints] to the cooling device controller, and cooling device controller is configured to control operations of the cooling device in cooling the digital processor using the program workload [hints] instead of processor temperature ([0023], Software control of cold surface temperatures to manage condensation risk and allow for dew point control and/or sub-dew point risk management during temporary peak performance excursions, including transient excursions based on workload anticipation and user risk tolerance settings; [0024], temperature prediction is determined based on monitoring of the CPU density factor; [0026], “Thermal Affinitizers” to concentrate processor affinities—or allocations of processor cores—for certain tasks or workloads to maximize the performance/frequency of the cores used to execute those tasks in conjunction with the sub-ambient TEC cooler (e.g., concentrating the cores allocated to Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT) threads to enable faster execution); [0036], the TEC controller may dynamically adjust the TEC 114 voltage to maintain temperatures above dew point to avoid condensation, or otherwise maintain temperatures within certain set points (e.g., specified by software or a user) to minimize the risk of condensation during temporary operation below dew point for certain workloads (e.g., for peak processor performance at the maximum clock frequency)).
MacDonald discloses dynamically adjust the cooling device based on certain workload information, in addition, in an analogous art of dynamically managing colling device for processor, Bawa discloses: wherein the digital processor is configured to output program workload hints to the cooling device controller, and cooling device controller is configured to control operations of the cooling device in cooling the digital processor using the program workload hints instead of processor temperature (Bawa: [0268], By activate the blower fan based on the heat load of the processing unit, the performance under high workload conditions of the processing unit may be significantly improved. By deactivate the blower fan based on the heat load of the processing unit, the current consumption can be reduced under low workload conditions of the processing unit; [0272], the information on the heat load may be predicted (e.g. the workload may be predicted), for example using machine-learning. For example, the information on the heat load may be based on a predicted development of the heat load);
MacDonald and Bawa are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, dynamically managing colling device for processor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of MacDonald using the teachings of Bawa to include adjust the cooling device based on predicted workload. It would provide MacDonald’s device with enhanced capabilities of utilizing position information to improve cooling device performance and reduce power consumption.
As for claim 2, MacDonald-Bawa discloses: wherein the cooling device controller is configured to adjust an amount of cooling of the digital processor by the cooling device based upon a program workload hint associated with the program running in the digital processor (MacDonald: [0023], Software control of cold surface temperatures to manage condensation risk and allow for dew point control and/or sub-dew point risk management during temporary peak performance excursions, including transient excursions based on workload anticipation and user risk tolerance settings; [0026], “Thermal Affinitizers” to concentrate processor affinities—or allocations of processor cores—for certain tasks or workloads to maximize the performance/frequency of the cores used to execute those tasks in conjunction with the sub-ambient TEC cooler (e.g., concentrating the cores allocated to Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT) threads to enable faster execution); [0036], the TEC controller may dynamically adjust the TEC 114 voltage to maintain temperatures above dew point to avoid condensation, or otherwise maintain temperatures within certain set points (e.g., specified by software or a user) to minimize the risk of condensation during temporary operation below dew point for certain workloads (e.g., for peak processor performance at the maximum clock frequency)).
As for claim 3, MacDonald-Bawa discloses: wherein the cooling device controller is configured to adjust power to the cooling device for controlling an amount of cooling of the digital processor by the cooling device based upon a program workload hint associated with the program running in the digital processor (MacDonald: [0036], the TEC controller is used to monitor thermal conditions within the computing device 100 (e.g., temperature/humidity), and based on the thermal conditions, dynamically adjust the voltage or cooling power of the TEC 114 to maximize processor performance while preventing or minimizing the risk of condensation; Bawa: [0361], In order to improve or optimize the power consumption and improve the performance, a software SW control algorithm and policy may be used. This policy may manage platform power, enable/disable TEC and/or adjust the current at different working conditions).
As for claim 4, MacDonald-Bawa discloses: wherein the cooling device is a heat sink in thermal communication with the digital processor and at least one fan configured for removing heat from the heat sink (Bawa: [0114], a heat sink; [0148], A cooling system of an electronic device may include all elements (e.g. cold plate), structures (e.g. guiding structure for air flow) and/or components (e.g. vapor chamber, heat pipe and/or fan), which help to actively or passively distribute or dissipate heat generated by the heat source 110; [0152], The heat source is mounted on a circuit board 150 (e.g. mother board) and the vapor chamber 120 is thermally coupled to a heat sink 180 through a heat pipe 160. The heat sink is arranged adjacent to a fan 170 and the fan 170 is configured to blow air through or over the heat sink 180).
As for claim 5, MacDonald-Bawa discloses: wherein the cooling device is a thermoelectric cooling Peltier module in thermal communication with the digital processor (MacDonald: [0041], The thermoelectric cooler (TEC) 114 may include any cooling device or mechanism that relies on, or operates using, thermoelectricity and/or the Peltier effect).
As for claim 6, MacDonald-Bawa discloses: wherein the cooling device is operable to cool the digital processor to sub-ambient temperatures (MacDonald: [0001], a thermoelectric cooling system with sub-ambient cooling and condensation control for a computing device).
As for claim 7, MacDonald-Bawa discloses: wherein the digital processor is at least two digital processors thermally coupled to the cooling device and electrically coupled to the cooling device controller (MacDonald: [0089], the CPU 708 may include any number, type, or combination of currently available or future developed devices capable of executing machine-readable instruction sets. The CPU 708 may include but is not limited to any current or future developed single- or multi-core processor or microprocessor, such as: on or more systems on a chip (SoCs); central processing units (CPUs); digital signal processors (DSPs); graphics processing units (GPUs); application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), programmable logic units, field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), and the like; Bawa: [0485], Computer systems may utilize vapor chambers for thermal cooling of processors or chip packages containing processors (e.g., a system-on-chip (SoC) that includes a central processing unit (CPU), graphics processing unit (GPU), and/or another type of processor)).
As for claim 8, MacDonald-Bawa discloses: wherein the digital processor is selected from the group consisting of any one or a combination of a microcontroller, a microprocessor, a mixed signal processor, a central processing unit (CPU), a programmable logic array (PLA), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a digital signal processor (DSP), a graphics processing unit (GPU), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), neural processing unit and tensor processing unit (MacDonald: [0089], the CPU 708 may include any number, type, or combination of currently available or future developed devices capable of executing machine-readable instruction sets. The CPU 708 may include but is not limited to any current or future developed single- or multi-core processor or microprocessor, such as: on or more systems on a chip (SoCs); central processing units (CPUs); digital signal processors (DSPs); graphics processing units (GPUs); application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), programmable logic units, field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), and the like; Bawa: [0485], Computer systems may utilize vapor chambers for thermal cooling of processors or chip packages containing processors (e.g., a system-on-chip (SoC) that includes a central processing unit (CPU), graphics processing unit (GPU), and/or another type of processor)).
As for claim 9, MacDonald-Bawa discloses: wherein the at least two digital processors send program workload hints to the cooling device controller for determining operation of the cooling device in cooling the at least two digital processors (MacDonald: [0089], the CPU 708 may include any number, type, or combination of currently available or future developed devices capable of executing machine-readable instruction sets. The CPU 708 may include but is not limited to any current or future developed single- or multi-core processor or microprocessor, such as: on or more systems on a chip (SoCs); central processing units (CPUs); digital signal processors (DSPs); graphics processing units (GPUs); application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), programmable logic units, field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), and the like; Bawa: [0485], Computer systems may utilize vapor chambers for thermal cooling of processors or chip packages containing processors (e.g., a system-on-chip (SoC) that includes a central processing unit (CPU), graphics processing unit (GPU), and/or another type of processor)).
As for claim 10, MacDonald-Bawa discloses: further comprising a cooling device for each of the at least two digital processors and the cooling device controller independently controls each of the cooling devices associated with the at least two digital processors based upon the program workload hints from each of the at least two digital processors (MacDonald: [0023], Software control of cold surface temperatures to manage condensation risk and allow for dew point control and/or sub-dew point risk management during temporary peak performance excursions, including transient excursions based on workload anticipation and user risk tolerance settings; [0026], “Thermal Affinitizers” to concentrate processor affinities—or allocations of processor cores—for certain tasks or workloads to maximize the performance/frequency of the cores used to execute those tasks in conjunction with the sub-ambient TEC cooler (e.g., concentrating the cores allocated to Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT) threads to enable faster execution); [0036], the TEC controller may dynamically adjust the TEC 114 voltage to maintain temperatures above dew point to avoid condensation, or otherwise maintain temperatures within certain set points (e.g., specified by software or a user) to minimize the risk of condensation during temporary operation below dew point for certain workloads (e.g., for peak processor performance at the maximum clock frequency)).
As for claim 11, MacDonald-Bawa discloses: further comprising at least one fan in thermal communication with the cooling device (Bawa: [0205], the electronic device comprises a guiding structure 220 (e.g. air flow control gasket) configured to guide the air flow caused by the fan along the surface of the vapor chamber 120).
As for claim 12, MacDonald-Bawa discloses: wherein the at least one fan is controlled by the cooling device controller (Bawa: [0205], the electronic device comprises a guiding structure 220 (e.g. air flow control gasket) configured to guide the air flow caused by the fan along the surface of the vapor chamber 120).
As for claim 13, MacDonald-Bawa discloses: further comprising a temperature sensor thermally coupled to the digital processor and electrically coupled to the cooling device controller (MacDonald: [0035], thermal sensors for measuring temperatures within the computing device 100).
As for claim 14, MacDonald-Bawa discloses: wherein the cooling device controller is configured to turn on the cooling device based on a temperature from the temperature sensor exceeding a temperature set point (MacDonald: [0070], the current processor temperature is less than or equal to the maximum processor temperature specified by the user; Bawa: [0271], if a junction temperature of the processing unit 360 is equal or larger than a first temperature threshold and/or deactivate the blower fan 370 if the junction temperature of the processing unit 360 is equal or lower than a second temperature threshold).
As per Claim 15, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by Claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting Claim 1 are incorporated herein.
As for claim 16, MacDonald-Bawa discloses: enabling the cooling device for maximum cooling of the digital processor when the cooling device is instructed by the program workload hints from the digital processor; and disabling the cooling device when instructed by the program workload hints from the digital processor (Bawa: [0361], In order to improve or optimize the power consumption and improve the performance, a software SW control algorithm and policy may be used. This policy may manage platform power, enable/disable TEC and/or adjust the current at different working conditions).
As for claim 17, MacDonald-Bawa discloses: wherein the program workload hints enables the cooling device before the program starts running in the digital processor (In MacDonald, temperature control is conducted based on workload anticipation (MacDonald: [0023]), temperature prediction is determined based on monitoring of the CPU density factor (MacDonald: [0024]), and the target cooling temperature can be dynamically set based on workload data (MacDonald: [0062]), that is, MacDonald’s temperature control is using anticipated/predicted workload data. In Bawa, the operation of blower fan is controlled based on the heat load data (Bawa: [0268]), and the heat load data includes predicted heat load which is determined using a machine-learning model (Bawa: [0272]), that is, Bawa’s cooling device control is conducted based on heat load including predicted heat load data. Accordingly, both MacDonald and Bawa teach using anticipated/predicted workload data to do temperature control before the workload is occurring, in other words, before the future temperature data is detected).
As for claim 18, MacDonald-Bawa discloses: wherein the program workload hints disables the cooling device before the program running in the digital processor is finished (Bawa: [0361], In order to improve or optimize the power consumption and improve the performance, a software SW control algorithm and policy may be used. This policy may manage platform power, enable/disable TEC and/or adjust the current at different working conditions).
As per Claim 19, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by Claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting Claim 1 are incorporated herein. In addition, MacDonald disclose: A digital processing system on a chip (SoC) ([0089], on or more systems on a chip (SoCs));
As for claim 20, MacDonald-Bawa discloses: wherein the cooling device controller is coupled to the cooling device and the digital processor, wherein the cooling device controller is configured to maintain a temperature of the digital processor above a dew-point based on the program workload hints (MacDonald: [0023], Software control of cold surface temperatures to manage condensation risk and allow for dew point control and/or sub-dew point risk management during temporary peak performance excursions, including transient excursions based on workload anticipation and user risk tolerance settings; [0025], Dynamic dew point monitoring using an integrated humidity sensor within a TEC controller board to facilitate a controlled response to the risk of condensation).
Conclusion
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 Hua Lu whose telephone number is 571-270-1410 and fax number is 571-270-2410. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached on 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-273-8300.
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.
/Hua Lu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights