DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 12/27/24 for application number 19/002,886. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, and Claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on Application No. 113105126 filed in China on 02/07/24.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 3-4 recite, “configured to detect a state of the host and an ambient temperature.;” (emphasis added) and should instead read, “configured to detect a state of the host and an ambient temperature;” to correct the typographical error.
Claim 1, line 7 recites, “wherein when the detection module detects that the status of the host is power-on,” (emphasis added) and should instead read, “wherein when the detection module detects that the status of the host is powered-on,” (emphasis added).
Claim 3, lines 2, 10, and 11 similarly recite instances of “power-on” as in Claim 1, and thus should be corrected to “powered-on” accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 5 of the Specification recites, “In some embodiments, when the detection module detects that the status of the host is power-on, the detection module starts to detect the ambient temperature.” (emphasis added) and should instead read, “In some embodiments, when the detection module detects that the status of the host is powered-on, the detection module starts to detect the ambient temperature.” (emphasis added)
Paragraphs 9, 10, 25, 30, and 38 contain similar instances of the phrase “power-on” and are objected to accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura, US 2008/0010563 A1, in view of Irving et al., 6,826,456 B1.
Regarding Claim 1, Nishimura discloses an automatic restart system [system of Fig. 1], comprising:
a processing module, configured to perform an internal operation [watchdog timer 17];
a detection module, electrically connected to the processing module and a host, and configured to detect a state of the host [detection module contained in power IC 7, connected to microcomputer 3 (host); when microcomputer executes a program, then a watchdog clear (WDC) signal is sent, indicating normal operation (allowing for detection of the state of the host), par 79] and a system component temperature [sensor 9 measure temperature of engine coolant, par 52]; and
a restart module, electrically connected to the processing module, the detection module and the host, and configured to send a restart signal to the host [restart module contained in power IC 7; watchdog timer outputs a reset signal for rebooting of the microcomputer (host) for a predetermined duration unless the measured time is reset within a timeout period, par 73, 74].
the processing module starts a countdown of a predetermined time [watchdog timer counts a predetermined constant duration, par 73]; wherein when the countdown reaches zero and the detection module has not received a normal operation signal sent by the host, the processing module notifies the restart module to send a restart signal to the host, causing the host to perform a restart operation and count down the predetermined time again until the detection module receives the normal operation signal sent by the host [watchdog timer outputs a reset signal for rebooting of the microcomputer (host) for a predetermined duration unless the measured time is reset within a timeout period; when microcomputer executes a program, it causes the watchdog clear (WDC) signal to be sent, which resets the watchdog timer (the WDC is sent when the microcomputer executes a program, and the microcomputer executing a program indicates it is in a normal operating state); watchdog timer continuously monitors and counts down, par 73, 74, 79].
However, Nishimura does not explicitly teach a low temperature monitoring system: wherein when the detection module detects that the status of the host is power-on, the detection module starts to detect the ambient temperature; and wherein when the ambient temperature is lower than a threshold value, the processing module starts a countdown of a predetermined time.
Irving teaches a low temperature monitoring system: wherein when the detection module detects that the status of the host is power-on, the detection module starts to detect the ambient temperature; and wherein when the ambient temperature is lower than a threshold value, the processing module starts a countdown of a predetermined time [shutdown timer begins when fans are set to high and temperature drops below a predetermined minimum temperature (i.e. monitoring the temperature while the system is on), Fig. 9; col. 11, ll. 31-33].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nishimura and Irving before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the starting of a timer once the temperature drops below a threshold as taught by Irving into the system as disclosed by Nishimura and Ruf to manage power requirements of a system using temperature readings [Irving, col. 1, ll. 28-32].
Regarding Claim 2, Nishimura and Irving disclose the low temperature monitoring and automatic restart system according to Claim 1. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein the threshold value is -5℃, and the predetermined time is 120 seconds.
Examiner notes, however, devices which operate “on basically the same principle and in the same manner” where the differences, in addition to being well-known, “solve no stated problem and would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art” are obvious variations of one another and thus not patentably distinct. See In re Kuhle, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). As such, a threshold value of -5℃, and a predetermined time of 120 seconds appear to simply be design choices, and the system would perform the same functions nonetheless.
Regarding Claim 3, Nishimura discloses an automatic restart method [using the system of Fig. 1]. The remainder of Claim 3 recites limitations similar those of Claim 1, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 4, Nishimura and Irving disclose the low temperature monitoring and automatic restart method according to Claim 3. Claim 4 repeats the same limitations as recited in Claim 2, and is rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Applicant is reminded that in amending a response to a rejection of claims, the patentable novelty must be clearly shown in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited and the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid such references and objections. See 37 CFR §1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 PT.
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.
/Paul Yen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights