DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
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 § 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poisner (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2002/0087907) and Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0181583).
Regarding Claim 1, Poisner discloses a method for preventing overheating, adapted to be performed by a computer device (Figure 1, item 100), the method for preventing overheating comprising:
detecting a system operating state (paragraph 0008; i.e., an overheated state [the claimed “system operating state”] can occur for the processor 110 when the cooling fan fails);
restarting the computer device when the system operating state is in an overheat preventing state (paragraphs 0009-0010 and claim 2);
detecting the system operating state again after the computer device is restarted (paragraph 0016; i.e., after the processor 110 is restarted once, its temperature continues to be monitored for another overheat condition); and
restarting the computer device and adjusting an operating efficiency of the computer device to a low-efficiency mode when the system operating state is still in the overheat preventing state (paragraph 0016; i.e., the processor 110 can be restarted again, but this time with clock throttling, voltage reduction, and frequency reduction [the claimed “low-efficiency mode”]),
wherein the computer device is restarted by a restart command (Figure 1, item 141, paragraph 0010).
Poisner does not expressly disclose wherein the detecting of the system operating state comprises:
receiving heat dissipation device operation information;
comparing the heat dissipation device operation information with an operation basis value, and generating an operation comparison result; and
determining the system operating state according to the operation comparison result.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., overheating prevention techniques), Wang teaches wherein the detecting of the system operating state comprises:
receiving heat dissipation device (Figure 1, item 17; i.e., a fan) operation information (Figure 1, item 15 and Figure 2A, item S21, paragraph 0011; i.e., receiving a rotation speed [equivalent to the claimed “heat dissipation device operation information”] of the fan 17);
comparing the heat dissipation device operation information with an operation basis value (paragraph 0010; i.e., a predefined threshold rotation speed for fan 17), and generating an operation comparison result (Figure 2A, item S22, paragraphs 0015 and 0026); and
determining the system operating state according to the operation comparison result (Figure 2A, item S22, paragraphs 0015-0016 and 0026; i.e., the failure of the fan 17 being equivalent to the claimed “system operating state”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Wang’s teachings of overheating prevention techniques with the teachings of Poisner, for the purpose of a more detailed mechanism to determine when the fan has failed (Poisner discloses a cooling fan that may fail but does not describe how the failure is detected).
Regarding Claims 2 and 9, Poisner discloses wherein the low-efficiency mode is an operation mode of setting the computer device to be operable with a highest operation efficiency without a heat dissipation device (paragraph 0016; i.e., after the fan fails [“without a heat dissipation device”], the processor 110 attempts to operate at the highest operation efficiency [e.g., at a particular voltage and frequency] it can, but may need to gradually step it down in case it continues to overheat).
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 16, Wang teaches wherein the determining of the system operating state according to the operation comparison result comprises: when the operation comparison result indicates that the heat dissipation device operation information is less than the operation basis value within a range of a predetermined time value, determining that the system operating state is in the overheat preventing state (paragraphs 0015 and 0024-0025; i.e., the fan rotation speed is checked over a range of a predetermined time value).
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 17, Wang teaches wherein the heat dissipation device operation information is a fan rotating speed value, and the operation basis value is 800 revolutions per minute (RPM) (paragraph 0010; i.e., Wang does not expressly disclose that the operation basis value is 800 RPM, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have done so because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation- In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); setting the operation basis value at 800 RPM would ensure that adequate cooling would occur in the computer system).
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 18, Poisner discloses wherein the detecting of the system operating state further comprises: receiving operating temperature information of the computer device (paragraph 0008);
when the operation comparison result indicates that the heat dissipation device operation information is less than the operation basis value (paragraph 0008; i.e., when it is determined that the fan has failed- when combined with Wang, this would result in the claimed “comparison”), comparing the operating temperature information with an operating temperature basis value, and generating an operating temperature comparison result (Figure 1, item 111, paragraph 0008; i.e., when the internal temperature of processor 110 exceeds the maximum acceptable limit [equivalent to the claimed “operating temperature basis value”], it generates the thermal trip signal 111 [the claimed “operating temperature comparison result”]); and
when the operation comparison result indicates that the heat dissipation device operation information is less than the operation basis value, the system operating state is further determined according to the operating temperature comparison result (paragraph 0008; i.e., when it is determined that the fan has failed- when combined with Wang, this would result in the claimed “comparison”, the system determines the temperature of processor 110).
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 19, Poisner discloses wherein the determining of the system operating state according to the operation comparison result comprises: when the operation comparison result indicates that the heat dissipation device operation information is less than the operation basis value within a range of a predetermined time value (paragraph 0002; i.e., in Poisner, a fan failure is immediately detected and corresponding actions are taken; when combined with Wang, it would result in a comparison of the fan speed within a range of a predetermined time value [see Wang, paragraph 0015]), and the operating temperature comparison result indicates that the operating temperature information is greater than or equal to the operating temperature basis value within the range of the predetermined time value, determining that the system operating state is in the overheat preventing state (Figure 1, item 111, paragraph 0008; i.e., when the internal temperature of processor 110 exceeds the maximum acceptable limit [equivalent to the claimed “operating temperature basis value”], it generates the thermal trip signal 111 [the claimed “operating temperature comparison result”]).
Regarding Claim 8, Poisner discloses a system for preventing overheating comprising:
a heat dissipation device (paragraph 0008; i.e., a fan), configured to provide heat dissipation device operation information; and
a computer device (Figure 1, item 100), configured to be coupled to the heat dissipation device;
wherein the computer device comprises:
a storage module, configured to have a computer program product stored therein (paragraph 0020; i.e., the computer program product on which the algorithm for the described method is stored); and
a processing module (Figure 1, item 110), configured to be coupled to the storage module;
wherein, after the processing module loads and executes the computer program product, the processing module is capable of performing a method for preventing overheating, the method for preventing overheating comprising:
detecting a system operating state (paragraph 0008; i.e., an overheated state [the claimed “system operating state”] can occur for the processor 110 when the cooling fan fails);
restarting the computer device when the system operating state is in an overheat preventing state (paragraphs 0009-0010 and claim 2);
detecting the system operating state again after the computer device is restarted (paragraph 0016; i.e., after the processor 110 is restarted once, its temperature continues to be monitored for another overheat condition); and
restarting the computer device and adjusting an operating efficiency of the computer device to a low-efficiency mode when the system operating state is still in the overheat preventing state (paragraph 0016; i.e., the processor 110 can be restarted again, but this time with clock throttling, voltage reduction, and frequency reduction [the claimed “low-efficiency mode”]),
wherein the computer device is restarted by a restart command (Figure 1, item 141, paragraph 0010).
Poisner does not expressly disclose the heat dissipation device is configured to provide heat dissipation device operation information;
wherein the detecting of the system operating comprises:
receiving the heat dissipation device operation information;
comparing the heat dissipation device operation information with an operation basis value, and generating an operation comparison result; and
determining the system operating state according to the operation comparison result.
In the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches the heat dissipation device (Figure 1, item 15 with item 17) is configured to provide heat dissipation device operation information (paragraph 0011);
wherein the detecting of the system operating comprises:
receiving the heat dissipation device (Figure 1, item 17; i.e., a fan) operation information (Figure 1, item 15 and Figure 2A, item S21, paragraph 0011; i.e., receiving a rotation speed [equivalent to the claimed “heat dissipation device operation information”] of the fan 17);
comparing the heat dissipation device operation information with an operation basis value (paragraph 0010; i.e., a predefined threshold rotation speed for fan 17), and generating an operation comparison result (Figure 2A, item S22, paragraphs 0015 and 0026); and
determining the system operating state according to the operation comparison result (Figure 2A, item S22, paragraphs 0015-0016 and 0026; i.e., the failure of the fan 17 being equivalent to the claimed “system operating state”).
The motivation discussed above with regards to Claim 1 applies equally as well to Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 15, Poisner discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium for preventing overheating (paragraph 0020; i.e., the computer-readable recording medium on which the algorithm for the described method is stored), after a computer device (Figure 1, item 100) loads and executes a computer program product stored in the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, the computer device is capable of performing a method for preventing overheating, the method for preventing overheating comprising:
detecting a system operating state (paragraph 0008; i.e., an overheated state [the claimed “system operating state”] can occur for the processor 110 when the cooling fan fails);
restarting the computer device when the system operating state is in an overheat preventing state (paragraphs 0009-0010 and claim 2);
detecting the system operating state again after the computer device is restarted (paragraph 0016; i.e., after the processor 110 is restarted once, its temperature continues to be monitored for another overheat condition); and
restarting the computer device and adjusting an operating efficiency of the computer device to a low-efficiency mode when the system operating state is still in the overheat preventing state (paragraph 0016; i.e., the processor 110 can be restarted again, but this time with clock throttling, voltage reduction, and frequency reduction [the claimed “low-efficiency mode”]);
wherein the computer device is restarted by a restart command (Figure 1, item 141, paragraph 0010).
Poisner does not expressly disclose wherein the detecting of the system operating state comprises:
receiving heat dissipation device operation information;
comparing the heat dissipation device operation information with an operation basis value, and generating an operation comparison result; and
determining the system operating state according to the operation comparison result.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., overheating prevention techniques), Wang teaches wherein the detecting of the system operating state comprises:
receiving heat dissipation device (Figure 1, item 17; i.e., a fan) operation information (Figure 1, item 15 and Figure 2A, item S21, paragraph 0011; i.e., receiving a rotation speed [equivalent to the claimed “heat dissipation device operation information”] of the fan 17);
comparing the heat dissipation device operation information with an operation basis value (paragraph 0010; i.e., a predefined threshold rotation speed for fan 17), and generating an operation comparison result (Figure 2A, item S22, paragraphs 0015 and 0026); and
determining the system operating state according to the operation comparison result (Figure 2A, item S22, paragraphs 0015-0016 and 0026; i.e., the failure of the fan 17 being equivalent to the claimed “system operating state”).
The motivation discussed above with regards to Claim 1 applies equally as well to Claim 15.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poisner and Wang as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Han (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0262354).
Regarding Claims 7, 14, and 20, Poisner and Wang do not expressly disclose wherein the method is activated according to a user selection result.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., overheating prevention techniques), Han teaches wherein the method is activated according to a user selection result (paragraphs 0025-0026).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Han’s teachings of overheating prevention techniques with the teachings of Poisner and Wang, for the purpose of providing more control to the user of the computer system. More specifically, by allowing the user to initiate the method, they would be able to determine when the processor throttling would occur, which would allow them to finish performing important tasks before the computer performance is downgraded.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because each reference discloses a method for preventing overheating by adjusting the operating efficiency of a computer device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues “[a]ccording to Poisner, it is clear that the processor must be turned off for a while because the internal temperature of the processor has exceeded a maximum acceptable limit in order to cool down the internal temperature thereof. In contrast, the amended independent claim 1 of the present application recites ‘the computer device is restarted by a restart command’, and it indicates that the computing device is restarted immediately without waiting time.” Response, page 12. The examiner disagrees. The argued claim does not preclude the prior art system from being able to turn off for a while. This is because the transitional phrase “comprising” is used in the preamble of the claim, which is open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See MPEP § 2111.03(I). Furthermore, the claim does not require that the computer device is restarted immediately without waiting time. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the computing device is restarted immediately without waiting time) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues “since the internal temperature of the processor has exceeded a maximum acceptable limit in Poisner, if the processor, which is already in an overheated condition, is restarted immediately without some waiting time (a cooling period), the heat in the processor can't be dissipated. This causes the processor to be identified as overheated, resulting in a repetitive restart loop.” Response, page 13. The examiner disagrees. In the Poisner system, the processor 110 is turned off for a period of time in order for it to cool down. See Poisner, paragraphs 0009, 0017, and 0020. It is only restarted once a time period expires so that it can cool down. See id. at paragraph 0010. Accordingly, it would not in fact result in a repetitive restart loop.
Therefore, the claims stand as previously rejected.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAISAL M ZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm, alternate Fridays.
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, Andrew J. Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. 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.
/FAISAL M ZAMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights