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. This action is responsive to the Application filed on 10/28/2024. A filing date 10/28/2024 is acknowledged. Claims 1-18 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 7, 13 are independent claims.
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.
3. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eric Michael Tunks et al (US Publication 20230337392 A1, hereinafter Tunks), and in view of Eric Michael Tunks et al (US Publication 20230228607 A1, hereinafter Tunks1), and Kenneth Alan Hass et al (US Patent 6337630 B1, hereinafter Hass).
As for independent claim 1, Tunks discloses: An information handling system (Abstract, A multi-device chassis air filter characterization system comprising:
a chassis (Abstract, A multi-device chassis air filter characterization system includes a multi-device chassis, an air filter that is included on the multi-device chassis, and a plurality of computing devices that are housed in the multi-device chassis); and a plurality of host information handling systems disposed within the chassis ([0001], characterizing air filters used in multi-device chassis that house multiple information handling systems to determine whether to replace those air filters), wherein each host information handling system includes: a host processor ([0029], the information handling system includes a processor); an air mover ([0040], The chassis 402 may also house a cooling system 408 that, in the specific example provided below, includes a fan system with one or more fan devices, but that one of skill in the art in possession of the present disclosure will appreciate may include any of a variety of air moving devices (e.g., air blowers, etc.) while remaining within the scope of the present disclosure as well); and an air filter (Abstract, an air filter that is included on the multi-device chassis); wherein a particular one of the plurality of host information handling systems further includes an airflow sensor configured to detect an amount of airflow associated with the air mover of the particular host information handling system ([0053], one the computing devices 500 in the multi-device chassis 202 may be configured to measure one or more air filter characteristics provided by the air filter in the air filter system 210 during the predetermined air filter characterization time period, and while a single “air filter test manager” computing device is described below as performing this functionality), … and wherein, in response to an airflow reading from the airflow sensor indicating that the air filter of the particular host information handling system is clogged ([0063], the particulate matter collected by that air filter creating a larger pressure drop across that air filter than existed before it has collected that particulate matter (i.e., due to some level of “clogging” of that air filter). As such, at decision block 612, the air filter characterization engine 404 in the air filter test manager computing device 400/500 in the multi-device chassis 200 may determine whether test differential pressure that provides the test air filtering characteristic differs from the reference differential pressure that provides the reference air filtering characteristic by more than a threshold), the information handling system is configured to: raise an air filter warning on the particular host information handling system ([0065], the first computing device generates an air filter replacement alert);
Tunks discloses the multi-device chassis may use one airflow sensor to detect air filter clogged, but does not clearly disclose other host information handling system does not need to have additional airflow sensors, in an analogous art of monitoring air filter status using sensor, Tunks1 discloses: and wherein none of the other host information handling systems include corresponding airflow sensors (Tunks1: [0092], be performed on only one filter/air mover combination that can be considered to characterize all of the air filter/air mover combinations in a particular chassis; [0096], Embodiments of the invention may provide an improved method for determining when to replace a dirty/clogged dust filter without using a fixed schedule or the use of additional sensors);
Tunks and Tunks1 are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, monitoring air filter status using sensor. 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 Tunks using the teachings of Tunks1 to include using one sensor to determine all of the air filters in a particular chassis. It would provide Tunks’ system with enhanced capabilities of improving user experience by allowing the filter to be replaced only when it needs without the additional sensors (Tunks1: [0096]).
Further, Tunks does not expressly raising alert on other host information handling systems, in another analogous art of monitoring air filter status, Hass discloses:
and raise an air filter warning on the other host information handling systems (Hass: Column 4, Lines 64-67, Column 5, Lines 8-11, the system management software can then notify the system administrator that the filter 30 may be clogged and needs to be cleaned or replaced. If the records indicate that the filter 30 has been changed fairly recently, the system management software may notify the system administrator that the configuration of computer components in the chassis 10 may be resulting in inadequate airflow through the interior of the chassis 10… This allows the system administrator to quickly replace, service or reconfigured the identified computer components and alleviate or remedy the unfavorable conditions within the computer chassis 10).
Tunks and Hass are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, monitoring air filter status using sensor. 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 Tunks using the teachings of Hass to include notifying the system administrator that other computer components in the chassis may be clogged. It would provide Tunks’ system with enhanced capabilities of allowing the system administrator to aware and remedy the unfavorable conditions within the computer chassis as suggested by Hass.
As for claim 2, Tunks-Tunks1-Hass discloses: wherein the airflow sensor is disposed within a removable bezel of the particular information handling system (Tunks: [0031], the multi-device chassis 202 includes a bezel 206 that is located on adjacent the air inlet 202e, and one of skill in the art in possession of the present disclosure will appreciate how air filter system coupling and/or securing features may be provided on the bezel 206).
As for claim 3, Tunks-Tunks1-Hass discloses: wherein the particular host information handling system is configured to notify the other host information handling systems directly regarding the air filter being clogged (Tunks: [0065], the air filter characterization engine 404 in the air filter test manager computing device 400/500 in the multi-device chassis 200 may perform air filter replacement alert generation operations 1600 that include generating an air filter replacement alert and transmitting that air filter replacement alert via the communication system 410. As will be appreciated by one of skill in the art in possession of the present disclosure, the air filter replacement alert may include any air filter replacement information known in the art for indicating or identifying the need to replace an air filter in a multi-device chassis, and may be transmitted in any manner (e.g., directly, via a network, etc.) to any device).
As for claim 4, Tunks-Tunks1-Hass discloses: wherein the airflow sensor is further configured to detect a missing air filter (Hass: Column 4, Lines 60-64, In response to measurements from the various sensing devices that indicate a unfavorable condition, the system management software can alert the system administrator to possible problems in the computer 5; please note the possible unfavorable condition of the filter may be the air filter is missing or is not working).
As for claim 5, Tunks-Tunks1-Hass discloses: wherein the particular host information handling system is configured to notify a management controller regarding the air filter being clogged (Tunks: [0065], the air filter replacement alert may include any air filter replacement information known in the art for indicating or identifying the need to replace an air filter in a multi-device chassis, and may be transmitted in any manner (e.g., directly, via a network, etc.) to any device (e.g., a management device)).
As for claim 6, Tunks-Tunks1-Hass discloses: wherein the management controller is configured to notify the other host information handling systems regarding the air filter being clogged (Hass: Column 4, Lines 64-66, the system management software can then notify the system administrator that the filter 30 may be clogged and needs to be cleaned or replaced).
As per claims 7-12, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claims 1-6, thus the rationales for rejecting claims 1-6 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 13-18, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claims 1-6, thus the rationales for rejecting claims 1-6 are incorporated herein.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Palmer (US Publication 20150359921) System And Method For Reducing Airborne Contamination
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
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