DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 7/13/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that: the claimed subject matter of Groups I, II and III are sufficiently related such that an undue burden would not be presented to the Examiner by maintaining all of the claims in this application
This is not found persuasive because: Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: (a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; (b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; (c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 12-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/13/26.
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.
Claim 1-11 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.
Claim 1-11 rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Referring to claim 1, line 13 recites the limitation “the given fan”, however lines 1-13 recites the limitations of “a plurality of fans”. Therefore the recitation of “the given fan” in the same or subsequent claim is unclear because it is uncertain which of the fans was intended (MPEP 2173.05(e)). For purposes of examination, it will be assumed to be any of these.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the new fan speed command" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Assumed to be a new fan speed command.
Claim 5, 7, recites the limitation "the fan assembly" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Assumed to be a fan assembly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 116 557 322 to XFusion.
XFusion teaches
1. A method for independently controlling speeds of a plurality of fans being used to cool a device (Fig. 1, page 7, “the computing device shown in FIG. 1 , one or more fans may be included. Specifically, in a large integrated device, multiple fans may be deployed to dissipate heat at different locations. Wherein, the operation of each fan can be controlled by the processor or the out-of-band controller”), wherein the device includes a sensor block having at least one temperature sensor (page 8, “the temperature sensor is usually deployed on the processor to detect the actual temperature of the processor and feed back to the BMC”), the method comprising:
determining an actual real-time ambient temperature rate change of a temperature sensor associated with the sensor block relative to a given fan speed (pages 1-2, claims 1-7, “the actual temperature change rate is the change condition of the actual temperature and the actual temperature at the previous moment”);
determining a real-time rate of change of a load of the device (pages 1-2, claims 1-7, “determining an observed disturbance value according to the load change rate”);
determining a desired temperature rate change of the temperature sensor (pages 1-2, claims 1-7, “the target temperature change rate”);
comparing the actual temperature rate change to the desired temperature rate change and generating a learning component therefrom (pages 1-2, claims 1-7, “the deviation comprises a difference between the filtered target temperature and the actual temperature obtained by low-pass filtering, and a difference between the target temperature rate of change and the actual temperature rate of change obtained by low-pass filtering”); and
using the learning component to generate the new fan speed command to be applied to the given fan (pages 1-2, claims 1-7, adjustment based on the deviation), the new fan speed command representing a new fan speed which at least one of:
optimizes power consumption of the given fan while still meeting real-time changing temperature and load requirements of the device being cooled (page 11, “For example, if the load change rate decreases, the power consumption of the processor will decrease accordingly, and the temperature may no longer Based on the information, the computing device can adaptively reduce the fan speed, so as to save the energy consumption of the fan”), or
reduces a fan noise being produced by the given fan while still meeting real-time changing temperature and load requirements of the device being cooled.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein generating a learning component further includes associating the monitored temperature rate of change, the monitored load rate of change and the real time ambient temperature change to at least one of: a specific fan speed change, a specific fan orientation/position, and an actual temperature change result (pages 1-2, claims 1-7).
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the generating a learning component further considers a maximum efficiency speed band of the given fan, and attempts to maintain the fan given operating within the maximum efficiency speed band while meeting a cooling need of the device being cooled (pages 1-2, claims 1-7; page 11, “For example, if the load change rate decreases, the power consumption of the processor will decrease accordingly, and the temperature may no longer Based on the information, the computing device can adaptively reduce the fan speed, so as to save the energy consumption of the fan”).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-7, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XFusion as applied to claims above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0066298 to Francino.
XFusion fails to teach
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising considering a present wear level of each one of said fans of said plurality of fans, and generating a wear balancing component adapted to wear balance the given one of the plurality of fans against remaining ones of the plurality of fans.
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising comparing the actual temperature rate change to the desired temperature rate change and generating a learning component which takes into account the wear balancing component when determining a new fan speed command intended to maintain a desired ambient temperature set point.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the new fan speed wear balances the given fan in relation to other ones of the plurality of fans, while still meeting real-time changing temperature and load requirements of the device being cooled.
5. The method of claim 4, further comprising turning off at least one fan of the fan assembly to help wear balance the given fan.
6. The method of claim 5, further comprising providing a recommendation to rotate the fan assembly to help wear balance the given fan.
7. The method of claim 4, wherein the new fan speed is determined in part by determining a present, cumulative run time for each fan of the fan assembly.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein generating a learning component further comprises considering an historical set of device load, device temperature, ambient temperature, change in device temperature, and current fan speed.
11. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
monitoring at least one of a current, a voltage or a power being delivered to the given fan; monitoring a speed of the given fan; and using stored, empirical data to determine a probability of failure of the given fan within a predetermined number of hours of run-time of the given fan.
Francino teaches
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising considering a present wear level of each one of said fans of said plurality of fans, and generating a wear balancing component adapted to wear balance the given one of the plurality of fans against remaining ones of the plurality of fans (paragraph 13, 48, 57-60).
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising comparing the actual temperature rate change to the desired temperature rate change and generating a learning component which takes into account the wear balancing component when determining a new fan speed command intended to maintain a desired ambient temperature set point (paragraph 13, 48, 57-60).
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the new fan speed wear balances the given fan in relation to other ones of the plurality of fans, while still meeting real-time changing temperature and load requirements of the device being cooled (paragraph 13, 48, 57-60).
5. The method of claim 4, further comprising turning off at least one fan of the fan assembly to help wear balance the given fan (paragraph 13, 48, 57-60).
6. The method of claim 5, further comprising providing a recommendation to rotate the fan assembly to help wear balance the given fan (paragraph 13, 48, 57-60).
7. The method of claim 4, wherein the new fan speed is determined in part by determining a present, cumulative run time for each fan of the fan assembly (paragraph 13, 48, 57-60).
10. The method of claim 9, wherein generating a learning component further comprises considering an historical set of device load, device temperature, ambient temperature, change in device temperature, and current fan speed (paragraph 13, 48, 57-60).
11. The method of claim 1, further comprising: monitoring at least one of a current, a voltage or a power being delivered to the given fan; monitoring a speed of the given fan; and using stored, empirical data to determine a probability of failure of the given fan within a predetermined number of hours of run-time of the given fan (paragraph 13, 48, 57-60).
XFusion and Francino are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area, cooling management.
Since Francino teaches determining which fans to use based on, e.g., wear, that enables running the plant at a more optimum operating point, e.g., to minimize or reduce the cost of each unit of useful energy, such as each kilowatt hour, wherein an optimizer having a numerical solver that determines values for a set of control variables that defines an optimal operating point of the plant and an expert system that oversees and modifies the control variable settings prior to providing these settings to a plant controller, wherein the output of the expert system is provided to the plant controller which then controls the plant to run at an optimal point as defined by the optimizer, wherein a numerical solver within the optimizer uses an objective function and one or more models of plant equipment to determine the best or most optimal operating point of the plant to, for example, minimize the cost per kilowatt-hour generated by the plant or minimize the cost of the production of other useful energy, wherein, as part of determining the optimal plant operating point, the numerical solver may determine the number of fans to run within the air cooled condensers of the plant and/or the speed of the fans to use in the air cooled condensers, all required to produce a given amount of power (load demand) at the particular environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity, etc.) currently experienced at the plant, wherein the expert system may use or modify these outputs by determining which fans to actually use at any particular time based on, for example, the availability of or the operational status of the fans, the wear of the fans and fan motors, etc, wherein the expert engine may then provide these modified outputs to the controller, which controls the plant to operate at the optimal operating point as specified by or associated with the outputs of the optimizer (Abstract, paragraph 13), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the technique of determining which fans to use based on, e.g., wear, as taught by Francino to improve the cooling management of XFusion for the predictable results of enabling running the plant at a more optimum operating point, e.g., to minimize or reduce the cost of each unit of useful energy, such as each kilowatt hour, wherein an optimizer having a numerical solver that determines values for a set of control variables that defines an optimal operating point of the plant and an expert system that oversees and modifies the control variable settings prior to providing these settings to a plant controller, wherein the output of the expert system is provided to the plant controller which then controls the plant to run at an optimal point as defined by the optimizer, wherein a numerical solver within the optimizer uses an objective function and one or more models of plant equipment to determine the best or most optimal operating point of the plant to, for example, minimize the cost per kilowatt-hour generated by the plant or minimize the cost of the production of other useful energy, wherein, as part of determining the optimal plant operating point, the numerical solver may determine the number of fans to run within the air cooled condensers of the plant and/or the speed of the fans to use in the air cooled condensers, all required to produce a given amount of power (load demand) at the particular environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity, etc.) currently experienced at the plant, wherein the expert system may use or modify these outputs by determining which fans to actually use at any particular time based on, for example, the availability of or the operational status of the fans, the wear of the fans and fan motors, etc, wherein the expert engine may then provide these modified outputs to the controller, which controls the plant to operate at the optimal operating point as specified by or associated with the outputs of the optimizer (Abstract, paragraph 13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3754. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm, M-F.
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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/Sean Shechtman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights