DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Prior Art Note
In this office action, the examiner relies on TWI688328 by Hsieh. It is noted that, in the name TWI688328, the third character is a capital “i” instead of a numeral “1”. The examiner merely notes this is case anyone else reviewing this office action is initially confused.
Unusual Language
In claim 1, applicant recites “a fan having an operating parameter”, “wherein the operating parameter at least comprises an operating noise of the fan”. However, in claim 3 (which depends from claim 1), applicant recites that “wherein the operating parameter comprises at least one of an actual rotation speed of the fan, a temperature of the fan, a usage frequency of the fan, a usage time of the fan and a cleaning cycle of the fan”. It is unusual to use the word parameter (singular) to refer to what is seemingly a plurality of parameters. One possible way to further improve clarity would be to use “at least one” language. For example, claim 1 could recite “a fan having at least one operating parameter”, “wherein the at least one operating parameter comprises an operating noise of the fan”. Dependent claim 3 could then recite “wherein the at least one operating parameter comprises at least one of…”. There are no doubt other ways of correcting this issue; the examiner is simply suggesting one possible technique.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “normal” in line 7 of claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, someone reading claim 1 might ask themselves: “how am I supposed to known if my fan state can be considered normal or not?”
The term “abnormal” in line 7 of claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “abnormal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, someone reading claim 1 might ask themselves: “how am I supposed to known if my fan state can be considered abnormal or not?”
The term “normal” in line 6 of claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, someone reading claim 7 might ask themselves: “how am I supposed to known if my fan state can be considered normal or not?”
The term “abnormal” in line 6 of claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “abnormal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, someone reading claim 7 might ask themselves: “how am I supposed to known if my fan state can be considered abnormal or not?”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 doesn’t appear to recite any limitation that isn’t already recited in claim 7. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites determining “a cleanliness status of a fan”, and claim 12 recites outputting “the cleanliness status”.
The limitation of determining a cleanliness status of a fan is a limitation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The fact that a control signal in the method is a “pulse-width modulation” signal is an example of a generic computing concept.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim 7 recites outputting “the cleanliness status”, but this outputting step is so broad that it doesn’t amount to a particular practical application. The mere movement of information is not a particular practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Although the claim recites a fan, this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See, for examples, pages 4-8 of the translation of TWI688328 by Hsieh and pages 3-6 of the translation of CN104564769 by Ye. Although the claim recites providing microphone data to a computer control system, this element is also well-understood, routine, and conventional. See for example, CN207198617 by Wang (Abstract; pages 2-5 of translation).
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, 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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TWI688328 by Hsieh in view of CN115254718 by Liu in view of CN207198617 by Wang in view of CN 104564769 by Ye.
With regard to claim 1, Hsieh teaches an electronic device (item 100 in Figure 1) comprising a fan (item 110 in Figure 1) for cooling the electronic device (Abstract; page 4 of translation). As examples of the electronic device 100, Hsieh lists a desktop computer, a notebook computer, and a tablet computer as examples (page 4 of translation). Hsieh’s electronic device comprises a processor (item 120 in Figure 1; reads on processor) configured to determine whether or not the fan is dirty and needs cleaning (pages 4-8 of translation). The electronic device uses an “artificial intelligence” fan status determination model to determine whether the fan is in a normal state or an abnormal state according to a plurality of “pieces of hardware information” (page 4 of translation). In other words, various data (called “pieces of hardware information” by Hsieh) are input in this fan status determination model, and then this model uses that data to make a determination of whether the fan is behaving in what Hsieh calls a “normal” state or if the fan is behaving in what Hsieh calls an “abnormal” state (pages 4-7 of translation). By “normal”, Hsieh means that the fan is determined to not be dirty and need no cleaning procedure (pages 4-5 of translation). By “abnormal”, Hsieh means that the fan is determined to be dirty and in need of a cleaning procedure (pages 4-7 of translation). Hsieh teaches that an example of “pieces of hardware information” is “fan rotation speed” (page 4 of translation). In the apparatus of Hsieh, the processor inputs the “pieces of hardware information” into the fan status determination model, and the processor controls the fan to reverse rotation directions (this reversal of rotating directions is how cleaning occurs) based on the fan status determination model determining that the fan is in an “abnormal state” (pages 4-8 of translation).
As discussed, various data (called “pieces of hardware information” by Hsieh) are input in this fan status determination model, and then this model uses that data to make a determination of whether the fan is behaving in what Hsieh calls a “normal” state or if the fan is behaving in what Hsieh calls an “abnormal” state (pages 4-7 of translation). However, Hsieh does not teach using operating noise of the fan as one of these “pieces of hardware information” for determining if the fan is behaving in a “normal” or “abnormal” manner.
Liu teaches that when a fan used to cool a piece of electronic equipment accumulates dust, the noise of the fan increases (page 2 of translation).
Wang teaches that a microphone can successfully be used to monitor the noise made by a fan such that the noise data can be used to determine if the fan is in an abnormal state (Abstract; pages 2-5 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Hsieh by having the apparatus comprise a microphone arranged to monitor noise from the fan and by having the “artificial intelligence” fan status determination model configured to receive noise data from the microphone and use such noise data in making its determination of whether the fan is behaving normally or abnormally. Liu teaches that when a fan used to cool a piece of electronic equipment accumulates dust, the noise of the fan increases, and Wang teaches that a microphone can successfully be used to monitor the noise made by a fan such that the noise data can be used to determine if the fan is in an abnormal state. Hsieh teaches using various data (called “pieces of hardware information” by Hsieh) to determine if a fan is dirty and needs cleaning, and motivation for performing the modification is that the noise of a fan is another source of data that could indicate that a fan is dusty and needs to be cleaned.
In the apparatus of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang, a processor (item 120 in Figure 1 of Hsieh) runs the fan status determination model, and that processor is also connected to the fan 110 (as shown in Figure 1 of Hsieh) such that the processor also functions as a controller of the fan (pages 4-5 of Hsieh translation). Applicant’s claim recites both a “controller” and a “processor”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang such that the “processor” is mentally and/or physically separated into two distinct computing chunks – a first chunk (corresponds to applicant’s controller) with the responsibility to control the rotation of the fan, and a second chunk (corresponds to applicant’s processor) with the responsibility of running the fan status determination model such that the “normal” or “abnormal” decision is output from this second chunk, thus allowing the first chunk to then receive that “normal” or” abnormal” decision and control the fan accordingly (by, for example, running direction-reversing cleaning procedure). In the art of computing, it is well known that a computer can have separate modules devoted to different activities, and the motivation for performing the modification would be that the separated computing chunks could still successfully perform the fan-control routine of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang.
The combination of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang does not explicitly teach that the first computing chunk (corresponds to applicant’s controller) is embedded. However, Hsieh teaches that the computing work for controlling the fan is done as part of an electronic device such as a desktop computer, a notebook computer, and a tablet computer (page 4 of Hsieh translation). In the art of computer products, it is well known for a computer product to have its control circuitry embedded inside the computer product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang such that the first and second computing chunks are embedded inside the electronic device (item 100 in Figure 1 of Hsieh). In the art of computer products, it is well known for a computer product to have its control circuitry embedded inside the computer product, and motivation for performing the modification would be to have the control circuitry protected from the outside environment by being embedded within the electronic device.
In the developed apparatus of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang, the first computing chunk (corresponds to applicant’s controller) has the job of controlling the fan. The combination of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang does not teach that a control signal from the first computing chunk is used by the fan status determination model when determining whether the fan is “normal” or “abnormal”.
Ye teaches that, prior to evaluating a fan’s speed to determine if the fan is dirty or not, an embedded controller can first use a control signal to control the fan to rotate (Abstract; Par. 0036-0043 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang such that, before the fan status determination model is used to determine whether the fan is “normal” or “abnormal”, the first computing chunk (recall, this is the chunk used to control the fan by communicating therewith) is configured to use a control signal to control the fan to rotate, and wherein the second computing chunk is made aware that the control signal is operating the fan such that the fan status determination model can perform its role of determining whether the fan is “normal” or “abnormal”. If the fan isn’t running, there is no point in using the fan speed to determine whether the fan is “normal” or “abnormal”; after all, the fan isn’t running, so there’s no fan speed (or, to nit-pick, the speed is zero). The motivation for performing the modification is that the fan has to somehow be controlled to rotate before its non-zero rotation speed can be used by the determination model, and therefore, it makes sense to have some control component (in this case, the first computing chunk) use a control signal to control the rotation of the fan. Further, since the fan status determination model need only operate when the fan is actually rotating, it makes sense for the fan status determination model to be informed that the control signal is controlling the fan to rotate. In this developed combination of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye, the fan status determination model thus uses both the control signal and the “pieces of hardware information” when determining whether the fan is in a “normal” or an “abnormal” state.
The combination of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye, as developed thus far, does not recite that the control signal (from the first computing chunk to the fan) is a pulse-width modulation signal.
Ye teaches that when using a control signal to control a fan’s rotation, a pulse-width modulation signal can successfully be used as such a signal (Par. 0036 of Ye).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye such that the control signal (from the first computing chunk to the fan) used to control the fan rotation is a pulse-width modulation signal. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Ye, who teaches that when using a control signal to control a fan’s rotation, a pulse-width modulation signal can successfully be used as such a signal.
With regard to claim 2, the combination of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye does not teach that the fan status determination model is embedded in an operating system. However, in the combination of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye, the electronic device is, for example, a desktop computer, a notebook computer, and a tablet computer as examples (page 4 of Hsieh translation). In the art of computers, it is well known that computing routines can be successfully run as part of an operating system for that computer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye such that the fan status determination model is “embedded” in an operating system of the electronic device. In the art of computers, it is well known that computing routines can be successfully run as part of an operating system for that computer, and motivation for performing the modification is that an operating system could successfully serve at the host for where the code running the fan status determination model is contained.
The combination of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye, as developed thus far, does not explicitly teach that the second computing chunk (reads on processor) runs the fan status determination model sometime after the electronic device is booted up and the operating system loaded. However, in computing, it is well known to run a cooling fan while the computer is “on” because the purpose of the fan is to cool the computer. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye such that, the second computing chunk (reads on processor) runs the fan status determination model sometime after the electronic device is booted up and the operating system loaded, as the fan is needed for cooling and the fan status determination model allows for cleaning of the fan when the fan is dirty.
With regard to claim 3, in the combination of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye, the various data (called “pieces of hardware information” by Hsieh) provided to the fan status determination model comprises an actual rotation speed of the fan (page 4 of Hsieh translation).
With regard to claim 6, in the combination of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye, the fan is rotated in a first direction when the fan is in the “normal” state, and the fan is rotated in a second, opposite direction when the fan is being cleaned because it is “abnormal” (pages 4-8 of Hsieh). The combination of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye does not explicitly teach that the fan is powered with current. However, in the art of powering fans to rotate, it is well-known that electric current can successfully be used to power a fan to rotate, and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye such that the fan is powered via electrical current. The combination of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye does not teach that a smaller electrical current is used during the cleaning than during the “normal” state. However, due to the well-known relationship between current and power, the current supplied to the fan can be considered to affect how fast the fan can rotate. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye be optimizing how much current is applied to the fan during “normal” operation and how much is applied during “cleaning”, as this current affects how much power is delivered to the fan and thus affects how fast the fan rotates. How fast the fan rotates during “normal” operation affects how much cooling can be performed by the cooling, and how fast the fan rotates during cleaning affects how much force to-be-flung-away contaminants (such as dust particles) on the fan experience.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TWI688328 by Hsieh in view of CN115254718 by Liu in view of CN207198617 by Wang in view of CN 104564769 by Ye as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2023/0394354 by Phan.
With regard to claim 5, the combination of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye teaches that the fan status determination model uses “artificial intelligence” such that a plurality of “pieces of hardware information” can be used by the model to determine if the fan is “normal” or “abnormal” (pages 4-7 of Hsieh translation). The combination of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye teaches that training data can be used to build the “artificial intelligence” fan status determination model (page 5 of Hsieh translation).
The combination of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye does not recite that the “artificial intelligence” specifically uses a rectified linear unit excitation function in a deep neural network.
However, Phan teaches that a rectified linear unit excitation function in a deep neural network can successfully be used to obtain an “artificial intelligence” model that manages inputs and outputs, wherein the model is built using data (Abstract; Par. 0004-0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye such that the “artificial intelligence” fan status determination model is obtained by using a rectified linear unit excitation function in a deep neural network. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Phan, who teaches that a rectified linear unit excitation function in a deep neural network can successfully be used to obtain an “artificial intelligence” model that manages inputs and outputs, wherein the model is built using data.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TWI688328 by Hsieh in view of CN115254718 by Liu in view of CN207198617 by Wang in view of CN 104564769 by Ye.
With regard to claim 7 and 10, Hsieh teaches a method for cleaning a fan (item 110 in Figure 1) of an electronic device (item 100 in Figure 1), wherein the fan serves to cool the electronic device (Abstract; page 4 of translation). As examples of the electronic device 100, Hsieh lists a desktop computer, a notebook computer, and a tablet computer as examples (page 4 of translation). Hsieh’s electronic device comprises a processor (item 120 in Figure 1; reads on processor) configured to determine whether or not the fan is dirty and needs cleaning (pages 4-8 of translation). The electronic device uses an “artificial intelligence” fan status determination model to determine whether the fan is in a normal state or an abnormal state according to a plurality of “pieces of hardware information” (page 4 of translation). In other words, various data (called “pieces of hardware information” by Hsieh) are input in this fan status determination model, and then this model uses that data to make a determination of whether the fan is behaving in what Hsieh calls a “normal” state or if the fan is behaving in what Hsieh calls an “abnormal” state (pages 4-7 of translation). By “normal”, Hsieh means that the fan is determined to not be dirty and need no cleaning procedure (pages 4-5 of translation). By “abnormal”, Hsieh means that the fan is determined to be dirty and in need of a cleaning procedure (pages 4-7 of translation). Hsieh teaches that an example of “pieces of hardware information” is “fan rotation speed” (page 4 of translation). In the method of Hsieh, the processor inputs the “pieces of hardware information” into the fan status determination model, and the processor controls the fan to reverse rotation directions (this reversal of rotating directions is how cleaning occurs) based on the fan status determination model determining that the fan is in an “abnormal state” (pages 4-8 of translation).
As discussed, various data (called “pieces of hardware information” by Hsieh) are input in this fan status determination model, and then this model uses that data to make a determination of whether the fan is behaving in what Hsieh calls a “normal” state or if the fan is behaving in what Hsieh calls an “abnormal” state (pages 4-7 of translation). However, Hsieh does not teach using operating noise of the fan as one of these “pieces of hardware information” for determining if the fan is behaving in a “normal” or “abnormal” manner.
Liu teaches that when a fan used to cool a piece of electronic equipment accumulates dust, the noise of the fan increases (page 2 of translation).
Wang teaches that a microphone can successfully be used to monitor the noise made by a fan such that the noise data can be used to determine if the fan is in an abnormal state (Abstract; pages 2-5 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hsieh by having a microphone arranged to monitor noise from the fan and by having the “artificial intelligence” fan status determination model configured to receive noise data from the microphone and use such noise data in making its determination of whether the fan is behaving normally or abnormally. Liu teaches that when a fan used to cool a piece of electronic equipment accumulates dust, the noise of the fan increases, and Wang teaches that a microphone can successfully be used to monitor the noise made by a fan such that the noise data can be used to determine if the fan is in an abnormal state. Hsieh teaches using various data (called “pieces of hardware information” by Hsieh) to determine if a fan is dirty and needs cleaning, and motivation for performing the modification is that the noise of a fan is another source of data that could indicate that a fan is dusty and needs to be cleaned.
In the method of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang, a job of the processor is controlling the fan. Hsieh does not teach that a control signal is used by the fan status determination model when determining whether the fan is “normal” or “abnormal”.
Ye teaches that, prior to evaluating a fan’s speed to determine if the fan is dirty or not, an embedded controller can first use a control signal to control the fan to rotate (Abstract; Par. 0036-0043 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang such that, before the fan status determination model is used to determine whether the fan is “normal” or “abnormal”, the processor is configured to use a control signal to control the fan to rotate, and wherein the control signal is also inputted into the fan status determination model such that the fan status determination model is made aware that the control signal is operating the fan and that the fan status determination model can thus perform its role of determining whether the fan is “normal” or “abnormal”. If the fan isn’t running, there is no point in using the fan speed to determine whether the fan is “normal” or “abnormal”; after all, the fan isn’t running, so there’s no fan speed (or, to nit-pick, the speed is zero). The motivation for performing the modification is that the fan has to somehow be controlled to rotate before its non-zero rotation speed can be used by the determination model, and therefore, it makes sense to have some control component (in this case, the processor) use a control signal to control the rotation of the fan. Further, since the fan status determination model need only operate when the fan is actually rotating, it makes sense for the fan status determination model to be informed that the control signal is controlling the fan to rotate. In this developed combination of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye, the fan status determination model thus uses both the control signal and the “pieces of hardware information” when determining whether the fan is in a “normal” or an “abnormal” state.
The combination of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye, as developed thus far, does not recite that the control signal (from the first computing chunk to the fan) is a pulse-width modulation signal.
Ye teaches that when using a control signal to control a fan’s rotation, a pulse-width modulation signal can successfully be used as such a signal (Par. 0036 of Ye).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye such that the control signal (from the first computing chunk to the fan) used to control the fan rotation is a pulse-width modulation signal. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Ye, who teaches that when using a control signal to control a fan’s rotation, a pulse-width modulation signal can successfully be used as such a signal.
With regard to claim 8, the combination of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye does not teach that the fan status determination model is embedded in an operating system. However, in the combination of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye, the electronic device is, for example, a desktop computer, a notebook computer, and a tablet computer as examples (page 4 of Hsieh translation). In the art of computers, it is well known that computing routines can be successfully run as part of an operating system for that computer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye such that the fan status determination model is “embedded” in an operating system of the electronic device. In the art of computers, it is well known that computing routines can be successfully run as part of an operating system for that computer, and motivation for performing the modification is that an operating system could successfully serve at the host for where the code running the fan status determination model is contained.
The combination of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye, as developed thus far, does not explicitly teach that the processor runs the fan status determination model sometime after the electronic device is booted up and the operating system loaded. However, in computing, it is well known to run a cooling fan while the computer is “on” because the purpose of the fan is to cool the computer. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye such that, the processor runs the fan status determination model sometime after the electronic device is booted up and the operating system loaded, as the fan is needed for cooling and the fan status determination model allows for cleaning of the fan when the fan is dirty.
With regard to claim 9, in the combination of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye, the various data (called “pieces of hardware information” by Hsieh) provided to the fan status determination model comprises an actual rotation speed of the fan (page 4 of Hsieh translation).
With regard to claim 11, in the combination of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye, the fan is rotated in a first direction when the fan is in the “normal” state, and the fan is rotated in a second, opposite direction when the fan is being cleaned because it is “abnormal” (pages 4-8 of Hsieh). The combination of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye does not explicitly teach that the fan is powered with current. However, in the art of powering fans to rotate, it is well-known that electric current can successfully be used to power a fan to rotate, and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye such that the fan is powered via electrical current. The electrical current used to power the rotation of the fan in the “normal” state can be considered to have a first current value, and the electrical current used to power the rotation of the fan in the “abnormal” state can be considered a second current value.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TWI688328 by Hsieh in view of CN115254718 by Liu in view of CN207198617 by Wang in view of CN 104564769 by Ye.
With regard to claim 12, Hsieh teaches a method for cleaning a fan (item 110 in Figure 1) of an electronic device (item 100 in Figure 1), wherein the fan serves to cool the electronic device (Abstract; page 4 of translation). As examples of the electronic device 100, Hsieh lists a desktop computer, a notebook computer, and a tablet computer as examples (page 4 of translation). Hsieh’s electronic device comprises a processor (item 120 in Figure 1) configured to determine whether or not the fan is dirty and needs cleaning (pages 4-8 of translation). The electronic device uses an “artificial intelligence” fan status determination model to determine whether the fan is in a normal state or an abnormal state according to a plurality of “pieces of hardware information”, wherein the fan status determination model then outputs the “normal” or “abnormal” determination (page 4 of translation). The outputted “normal” or “abnormal” determination reads on applicant’s cleanliness status. In other words, various data (called “pieces of hardware information” by Hsieh) are input in this fan status determination model, and then this model uses that data to make a determination of whether the fan is behaving in what Hsieh calls a “normal” state or if the fan is behaving in what Hsieh calls an “abnormal” state (pages 4-7 of translation). By “normal”, Hsieh means that the fan is determined to not be dirty and need no cleaning procedure (pages 4-5 of translation). By “abnormal”, Hsieh means that the fan is determined to be dirty and in need of a cleaning procedure (pages 4-7 of translation). Hsieh teaches that an example of “pieces of hardware information” is “fan rotation speed” (page 4 of translation). In the method of Hsieh, the processor inputs the “pieces of hardware information” into the fan status determination model, and the processor controls the fan to reverse rotation directions (this reversal of rotating directions is how cleaning occurs) based on the fan status determination model determining that the fan is in an “abnormal state” (pages 4-8 of translation).
As discussed, various data (called “pieces of hardware information” by Hsieh) are input in this fan status determination model, and then this model uses that data to make a determination of whether the fan is behaving in what Hsieh calls a “normal” state or if the fan is behaving in what Hsieh calls an “abnormal” state (pages 4-7 of translation). However, Hsieh does not teach using operating noise of the fan as one of these “pieces of hardware information” for determining if the fan is behaving in a “normal” or “abnormal” manner.
Liu teaches that when a fan used to cool a piece of electronic equipment accumulates dust, the noise of the fan increases (page 2 of translation).
Wang teaches that a microphone can successfully be used to monitor the noise made by a fan such that the noise data can be used to determine if the fan is in an abnormal state (Abstract; pages 2-5 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hsieh by having a microphone arranged to monitor noise from the fan and by having the “artificial intelligence” fan status determination model configured to receive noise data from the microphone and use such noise data in making its determination of whether the fan is behaving normally or abnormally. Liu teaches that when a fan used to cool a piece of electronic equipment accumulates dust, the noise of the fan increases, and Wang teaches that a microphone can successfully be used to monitor the noise made by a fan such that the noise data can be used to determine if the fan is in an abnormal state. Hsieh teaches using various data (called “pieces of hardware information” by Hsieh) to determine if a fan is dirty and needs cleaning, and motivation for performing the modification is that the noise of a fan is another source of data that could indicate that a fan is dusty and needs to be cleaned.
In the method of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang, a job of the processor is controlling the fan. Hsieh does not teach that a pulse-width modulation control signal is used by the fan status determination model when determining whether the fan is “normal” or “abnormal”.
Ye teaches that, prior to evaluating a fan’s speed to determine if the fan is dirty or not, an embedded controller can first use a control signal to control the fan to rotate (Abstract; Par. 0036-0043 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang such that, before the fan status determination model is used to determine whether the fan is “normal” or “abnormal”, the processor is configured to use a control signal to control the fan to rotate, and wherein the control signal is also inputted into the fan status determination model such that the fan status determination model is made aware that the control signal is operating the fan and that the fan status determination model can thus perform its role of determining whether the fan is “normal” or “abnormal”. If the fan isn’t running, there is no point in using the fan speed to determine whether the fan is “normal” or “abnormal”; after all, the fan isn’t running, so there’s no fan speed (or, to nit-pick, the speed is zero). The motivation for performing the modification is that the fan has to somehow be controlled to rotate before its non-zero rotation speed can be used by the determination model, and therefore, it makes sense to have some control component (in this case, the processor) use a control signal to control the rotation of the fan. Further, since the fan status determination model need only operate when the fan is actually rotating, it makes sense for the fan status determination model to be informed that the control signal is controlling the fan to rotate. In this developed combination of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye, the fan status determination model thus uses both the control signal and the “pieces of hardware information” when determining whether the fan is in a “normal” or an “abnormal” state.
The combination of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye, as developed thus far, does not recite that the control signal (from the first computing chunk to the fan) is a pulse-width modulation signal.
Ye teaches that when using a control signal to control a fan’s rotation, a pulse-width modulation signal can successfully be used as such a signal (Par. 0036 of Ye).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hsieh in view of Liu in view of Wang in view of Ye such that the control signal (from the first computing chunk to the fan) used to control the fan rotation is a pulse-width modulation signal. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Ye, who teaches that when using a control signal to control a fan’s rotation, a pulse-width modulation signal can successfully be used as such a signal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues against the examiner’s 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections for the relative terms “normal” and “abnormal”. Applicant argues that since both terms – “normal” and “normal” – are present in the claims, the presence of both terms makes their meaning clear. However, that is not persuasive. The presence of the word “abnormal” does not somehow define “normal” in a definitive manner, and the presence of the word “normal” does not somehow define “abnormal” in a definitive manner. Applicant also argues the following:
In addition, general electronic device can detect the fan status (“normal” or “abnormal”) through internal signal detection, and thus how to determine “normal state” and “abnormal state” is not the necessary features in claimed invention.
This argument is not persuasive. Different people might disagree on what “normal” or “abnormal” fan behavior is, and thus there could be difficulty in deciding if a given controller is accurately making a “normal” vs. “abnormal” determination. Someone reading claim 1, for example, might ask themselves: “how am I supposed to known if my fan state can be considered normal or not?”
Applicant “further suggests that Examiner may regard ‘normal state’ as ‘first state’, and regard ‘abnormal state’ as ‘second state’ for facilitating examination”. The examiner agrees that the terms “first state” and “second state” would not prompt such 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections for relative terminology. However, the terms “first state” and “second state” aren’t used in the claims. Instead, the terms “normal” and “abnormal” are used, and the terms “normal” and “abnormal” do prompt 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections for relative terminology.
The examiner has maintained his 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 12. With regard to claim 12, applicant argues that a pulse-width modulation (PWM) signal “must be generated by a machine and cannot be generated by human mind” and thus the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 12 is improper. This line of argument is not persuasive. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The fact that a control signal in the method is a “pulse-width modulation” signal is an example of a generic computing concept.
With regard to applicant’s arguments concerning the obviousness rejections, the arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 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 RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714