DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 02/06/25 for application number 19/047,458. 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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 18, line 1-3 recite, “wherein determining the thermal resistance between the cooling medium and the heat-generating component of the electronic device comprises applying one or more machine-learning models” (emphasis added) and should instead read, “wherein determining the thermal resistance between the cooling medium and the heat-generating component of the electronic device comprises applying one or more machine-learning models to the thermal telemetry data of the cooling medium and the heat-generating component”(emphasis added) to clarify to what the model is being applied. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oishi et al., US 20190324481 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Oishi discloses a method for monitoring an electronic device [method of Fig. 3], the method comprising:
determining, based at least on thermal telemetry data associated with the electronic device, a thermal resistance between a cooling medium and a heat-generating component of the electronic device [obtaining the temperature difference between the FET and heat sink at step ST4 (the FET being the heat-generating component and the heat sink being the cooling medium), and obtaining the thermal resistance at step ST5]; and
based at least on the thermal resistance, determining an operational status of the electronic device [based on the thermal resistance, the method can determine whether the system is abnormal (i.e. operating status) at step ST6].
Regarding Claim 13, Oishi discloses the method of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the thermal telemetry data includes one or more of: a value for a temperature of the heat-generating component of the electronic device [obtaining the temperature of the FET and heat sink at step ST4, Fig. 3], a value for a power consumed by the heat-generating component of the electronic device [step ST3], a value for a fan speed of a cooling system associated with the electronic device, a value for a temperature of the cooling medium [step ST4], or a value for an indicator of a liquid coolant flow rate.
Regarding Claim 15, Oishi discloses an electronic device [power supply device 1, Fig. 1]. The remainder of Claim 15 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 1, and is rejected accordingly.
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 2, 9, 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi in view of Lovicott et al., US 2016/0102880 A1.
Regarding Claim 2, Oishi discloses the method of Claim 1. However, Oishi does not explicitly teach wherein determining the operational status of the electronic device comprises comparing the thermal resistance between the cooling medium and the heat-generating component of the electronic device to a thermal resistance associated with a plurality of electronic devices.
Lovicott teaches comparing the thermal resistance between the cooling medium and the heat-generating component of the electronic device to a thermal resistance associated with a plurality of electronic devices [calculating thermal resistance for each component 104, 106, and 108; the controller 102 can then compare the calculated thermal resistance versus air flow for a particular component with stored threshold values of thermal resistance versus air flow for different cooling domains of the information handling system 100, par 16, 17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Oishi and Lovicott before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the comparison of thermal resistances as taught by Lovicott into the method as disclosed by Oishi, to allow for determination of whether a component is expected to fail, and to shut down the component in preparation for failure [Lovicott, par 18].
Regarding Claim 9, Oishi discloses the method of Claim 1. Oishi further discloses wherein the thermal telemetry data associated with the electronic device comprises a value for a temperature of the heat-generating component [obtaining the temperature of FET and heat sink at step ST4, Fig. 3] and a value for power consumed by the heat-generating component [obtaining the value of the power consumed at step ST3].
However, Oishi does not explicitly teach a plurality of measurement values of the heat- generating component.
Lovicott teaches a plurality of measurement values of the heat- generating component [plurality of thermal resistances for the plurality of components; thermal resistance for each component is calculated by a temperature value difference between the temperature of the component and the ambient temperature (i.e. cooling medium), par 16, 17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Oishi and Lovicott before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the comparison of the thermal resistances as taught by Lovicott into the method as disclosed by Oishi, to allow for determination of whether a component is expected to fail, and to shut down the component in preparation for failure [Lovicott, par 18].
Regarding Claim 14, Oishi discloses the method of Claim 1. However, Oishi does not explicitly teach wherein the electronic device comprises a graphics processing unit, a central processing unit, a network-interface controller, a network switch, a network router, an optical module, or a laser.
Lovicott teaches wherein the electronic device comprises a graphics processing unit, a central processing unit, a network-interface controller, a network switch, a network router, an optical module, or a laser [server 100, Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Oishi and Lovicott before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the server as taught by Lovicott into the method as disclosed by Oishi, to apply cooling methods to various architectures such as information handlings systems such as servers [Lovicott, par 2].
Regarding Claims 16 and 20, Oishi discloses the electronic device of Claim 15. Claims 16 and 20 repeat the same limitations as recited in Claims 2 and 9, and are rejected accordingly.
Claims 3, 4, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi in view of Ayano et al., US 2013/0015799 A1.
Regarding Claim 3, Oishi discloses the method of Claim 1. However, Oishi does not explicitly teach wherein determining the operational status of the electronic device comprises comparing the thermal resistance of the electronic device to a previously measured thermal resistance between the cooling medium and the heat- generating component.
Ayano teaches wherein determining the operational status of the electronic device comprises comparing the thermal resistance of the electronic device to a previously measured thermal resistance between the cooling medium and the heat- generating component [the lifetime evaluation circuit 108 determines that an abnormal condition is detected if the thermal resistance becomes a thermal resistance value higher by at least a predetermined amount as compared with the history of thermal resistance value measured when a predetermined current is given for a predetermine time, par 51].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Oishi and Ayano before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to compare thermal resistance to previously recorded thermal resistances as taught by Ayano into the method as disclosed by Oishi, to determine the lifetime of a device based on the thermal resistance values over time [Ayano, par 2].
Regarding Claim 4, Oishi disclose the method of Claim 1. However, Oishi does not explicitly teach generating an indicator corresponding to the operational status of the electronic device.
Ayano teaches generating an indicator corresponding to the operational status of the electronic device [if it is determined that an abnormal condition is detected, the abnormal indication signal is output as in the first embodiment to display the abnormal state is displayed on the display device or the abnormal indication signal is issued to the management center, par 51].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Oishi and Ayano before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate indication of operating status as taught by Ayano into the method as disclosed by Oishi, to determine the lifetime of a device based on the thermal resistance values [Ayano, par 2].
Regarding Claim 17, Oishi discloses the electronic device of Claim 15. Claim 17 repeats the same limitations as recited in Claim 3, and is rejected accordingly.
Claims 5-7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi in view of Takagi et al., US 2015/0259589 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, Oishi discloses the method of Claim 1. However, Oishi does not explicitly teach wherein determining the thermal resistance between the cooling medium and the heat-generating component of the electronic device comprises determining the heat-generating component is in a state of thermal equilibrium.
Takagi teaches wherein determining the thermal resistance between the cooling medium and the heat-generating component of the electronic device comprises determining the heat-generating component is in a state of thermal equilibrium [determine thermal resistance when components are in thermal equilibrium, par 240].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Oishi and Takagi before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate determination of thermal resistance during thermal equilibrium as taught by Takagi into the method as disclosed by Oishi, to provide reference points for comparison of thermal resistance [Takagi, par 240].
Regarding Claim 6, Oishi and Takagi disclose the method of Claim 5. Oishi further discloses wherein the thermal resistance between the cooling medium and the heat-generating component of the electronic device is determined based on at least one of: a power consumption of the heat-generating component [obtain power consumption of FET at step ST3, Fig. 3], a temperature of the cooling medium, or a fan speed.
Regarding Claim 7, Oishi and Takagi disclose the method of Claim 5. Oishi further discloses wherein the thermal resistance between the cooling medium and the heat-generating component of the electronic device is determined based on at least one of: a power consumption of the heat-consuming device, a temperature of the cooling medium [obtaining a temperature between FET and heat sink at step ST4 (which would including the temperature of each in order to determine the temperature difference), Fig. 3], or an indicator of a cooling liquid flow rate.
Regarding Claim 19, Oishi disclose the electronic device of Claim 15. Claim 19 repeats the same limitation as recited in Claim 5, and is rejected accordingly.
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi in view of Tagaki, and further in view of Inagaki et al., US 2019/0278164 A1.
Regarding Claim 8, Oishi and Takagi disclose the method of Claim 5. However, Oishi does not explicitly teach wherein determining that the heat-generating component is in the state of thermal equilibrium comprises monitoring at least one of a power consumption of the heat-consuming device or a temperature of the heat-consuming device
Inagaki teaches wherein determining that the heat-generating component is in the state of thermal equilibrium comprises monitoring at least one of a power consumption of the heat-consuming device or a temperature of the heat-consuming device [determines if a component is in thermal equilibrium based on internal temperature, par 95].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Oishi, Takagi, and Inagaki before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate monitoring device temperature in order to determine a state of thermal equilibrium as taught by Inagaki, into the method as disclosed by Oishi and Takagi, to allow more accurate determination of equilibrium status and thus more accurate adjustments of an electronic device [Inagaki, par 6].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi and Lovicott, and further in view of Fujimoto et al., US 2020/0401326 A1.
Regarding Claim 10, Oishi and Lovicott disclose the method of Claim 9. However, while Oishi discloses determining the thermal resistance between the cooling medium and the heat-generating component, Oishi and Lovicott do not explicitly teach wherein determining the thermal resistance comprises performing a model fit on the first plurality of values for the temperature of the heat-generating component and the second plurality of values for the power consumed by the heat-generating component.
Fujimoto teaches wherein determining the thermal resistance comprises performing a model fit on the first plurality of values for the temperature of the heat-generating component and the second plurality of values for the power consumed by the heat-generating component [thermal resistance models as provided in par 136 and 138].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Oishi, Lovicott, and Fujimoto before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate thermal resistance modeling as taught by Fujimoto, into the method as disclosed by Oishi and Lovicott, to assist in calculations of device surface temperatures [Fujimoto, par 132, 133].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi and Lovicott, and further in view of Ayano.
Regarding Claim 11, Oishi and Lovicott disclose the method of Claim 9. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein the thermal telemetry data does not include a value of the cooling medium.
Ayano teaches wherein the thermal telemetry data does not include a value of the cooling medium [telemetry data can just be voltage detected and used to calculate thermal resistance, par 17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Oishi, Lovicott, and Ayano before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the telemetry data as taught by Ayano, into the method as disclosed by Oishi and Lovicott, to determine the lifetime of a device simply based on thermal resistance values from detected voltage [Ayano, par 2].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi and Lovicott, and further in view of Eleftheriou et al., 2016/0379110 A1.
Regarding Claim 12, Oishi and Lovicott disclose the method of Claim 9. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein receipt of each value for the temperature of the heat-generating component is separated by a time interval that is less than a time constant associated with the heat-generating component.
Eleftheriou teaches wherein receipt of each value for the component is separated by a time interval that is less than a time constant associated with the component [sampling rate is faster than a time constant, par 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Oishi, Lovicott, and Eleftheriou before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the sampling rate as taught by Eleftheriou, into the method as disclosed by Oishi and Lovicott, to provide for more efficient processing [Eleftheriou, par 3].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi in view of Roghanizad, 2022/0390292 A1.
Regarding Claim 18, Oishi discloses the electronic device of Claim 15. However, while Oishi discloses determining the thermal resistance between the cooling medium and the heat-generating component of the electronic device [obtaining the temperature difference between the FET and heat sink at step ST4 (the FET being the heat-generating component and the heat sink being the cooling medium), and obtaining the thermal resistance at step ST5], Oishi does not explicitly teach wherein determining the thermal resistance comprises applying one or more machine-learning models.
Roghanizad teaches wherein determining the thermal resistance comprises applying one or more machine-learning models [the circuitry is configured to adjust one or more of the estimated indicative quantit(ies) for the internal parameter(s) and the estimated thermal contact resistance using one or more machine learning techniques, Claim 51].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Oishi and Roghanizad before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate using models to determine thermal resistance, as taught by Roghanizad, into the method as disclosed by Oishi, to perform non-invasive thermal testing and monitoring [Roghanizad, par 3].
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