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 .
This application has been examined. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The Group and/or Art Unit location of your application in the PTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Group Art Unit 2175.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 4, 10-11, 16, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention:
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Claims 4 and 10 recite “in a case where a guaranteed speed desired by the host device is included in the command information.” Because the limitation is conditioned on a contingency (“in a case where …”) that need not occur, it is unclear whether the recited “rising temperature is the temperature difference reached when the operation is continued at the guaranteed speed” is a required limitation of the claim or merely an optional consequence. The scope of the claim is therefore ambiguous. See MPEP § 2111.04. Clarification is required as to whether the conditional clause further limits the claim.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Claim 11 recites “when the threshold temperature calculated exceeds a corresponding temperature, a fact is returned” as the setting information to the host device. The phrase “a fact is returned” is indefinite: it is unclear what information constitutes “a fact,” and the metes and bounds of what must be returned cannot be determined. The specification at [0056]-[0057] describes returning an “error notification indicating that the threshold temperature … cannot be calculated,” suggesting the claim intends an error/notification rather than “a fact.” Further, “a corresponding temperature” lacks clear antecedent basis and it is unclear whether it refers to the maximum value MXTMT (see [0056]). Clarification and correction are required. For the purpose of applying prior art, claim 11 is interpreted as returning an error/notification when the calculated threshold exceeds the maximum settable value (MXTMT).
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Claims 16 and 18 recite both “a thermal throttling threshold” / “a guaranteed speed” and, later, “the guaranteed speed” in the phrase “a relationship between a convergence temperature, the guaranteed speed, and an internal temperature.” Where two “guaranteed speed” recitations appear, it is unclear whether “the guaranteed speed” refers to the same guaranteed speed associated with the thermal throttling threshold or to a different guaranteed speed of the convergence-temperature relationship. Clarification of the antecedent relationships among the recited “relationship[s]” is required.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Claim 20 recites that “the calculation of the threshold temperature includes calculating a convergence temperature related to a desired guaranteed speed …, a maximum temperature that can be set as the thermal throttling threshold, and the relationship between the convergence temperature, the guaranteed speed, and the internal temperature ….” The grammatical structure makes it unclear which items are being “calculated” and which are inputs to the calculation (e.g., whether “the relationship” is calculated or merely used), and “a maximum temperature that can be set” lacks antecedent basis in claim 18 from which claim 20 depends. The claim is further indefinite because claim 20 depends from claim 18 (a host device) yet recites “the control unit operates a cooling function,” while the cooling component (fan 102) is described in the specification as part of the host device — antecedent basis for the “cooling function” is not established in claim 18. Clarification and correction are required.
The dependent claims not separately treated above are rejected under § 112(b) at least by virtue of their dependency from a claim rejected under § 112(b), to the extent they incorporate the indefinite limitation.
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 t which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara et al. (“Sugawara”) (US Pub No. 2016/0062421) in view of Winkler et al. (“Winkler”) (US No. 11,803,217).
In order to expedite and avoid piecemeal prosecution, the following rejection is made to the extent that the claims are understood, by considering those elements which are understood and interpreting their function in a manner which is consistent with the recited goals of the claims, and then applying the best available art.
The examiner relies on the entire teachings of Sugawara and Winkler references; the applicant should carefully consider the entire teachings of the above-mentioned references to better understand the examiner’s position.
In regard to claim 1, Sugawara discloses a recording medium (data storage device 120; ¶[0016], figure 1) connected to a host device (host computing device 110; ¶[0017]), the recording medium comprising: a memory (memory device 150; ¶[0018]); a control unit that controls the memory (controller 140 with firmware 170; ¶[0018]);
PNG
media_image1.png
469
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and an interface unit that communicates with the host device (the storage device 120 is “removably connected to” and reads values from host 110 - the connection/read interface; ¶ [0017], [0018]);
Sugawara further discloses that the interface/controller “receives a threshold temperature of thermal throttling from the host device” (controller 140 reads a threshold temperature value from BIOS 130 of host 110; ¶[0021]-[0022], claims 8, 10), and that “the control unit controls an operation based on the threshold temperature” (firmware 170 compares the detected temperature to the host threshold and throttles read/write operations of memory 150 accordingly; ¶[0022]-[0025]). But Sugawara does not expressly disclose that the interface unit “transmits setting information including a rising temperature that is a temperature difference between a surface and an inside of the recording medium.”
Winkler, in the same field of thermal management of data storage devices, teaches a data storage device (SSD) having at least one ambient (surface/case-region) temperature sensor and at least one component (internal) temperature sensor, and a processor that determines a composite temperature “based on the one or more component temperatures and the ambient temperature,” i.e., derives and uses a value from both the surface/ambient temperature and the internal component temperature of the device (Abstract; figure 1; col. 2-6: “determine a composite temperature … based on the one or more component temperatures and the ambient temperature”; claim 1). Winkler thereby supplies the missing teaching of characterizing the device thermal state by the relationship/difference between a surface (ambient/case) temperature and an inside (component) temperature and making that characterization available for a threshold comparison.
PNG
media_image2.png
556
381
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sugawara’s device-side thermal-throttling arrangement so that the storage device transmits, as setting/response information to the host, a rising temperature representing the temperature difference between the surface and the inside of the medium as taught by Winkler, and to have the host set the throttling threshold accordingly. The motivation to combine is Winkler’s express rationale: characterizing the device by both surface/ambient and internal temperatures yields a more accurate representation of the actual thermal state of the device (Winkler, Abstract; col. 4-6) so that thermal-management actions are neither premature nor too late - directly serving Sugawara’s stated goal of continuing to operate at reduced performance rather than shutting down, thereby maximizing operating uptime (Sugawara ¶[0004]-[0005], Fig. 4). The combination is nothing more than the use of a known technique (reporting a surface-vs-internal temperature relationship, Winkler) to improve a similar device (Sugawara’s host-configured throttling storage device) in the same way, yielding the predictable result of a more accurately-placed throttling threshold. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP § 2143(A), (C).
In regard to claim 2, Sugawara discloses that a pre-defined command from the host sets the threshold value(s) after the device powers on and initializes to an operational state (¶[0023]-[0024], block 210 “system may power on,” block 215 “pre-defined command from the host computing device”). To the extent Sugawara does not use the precise phrase “after an initialization command is received … and initialization processing is completed,” it would have been obvious that transmitting setting information following device power-on/initialization and before normal operation, as is conventional in NVMe device bring-up (AAPA ¶¶[0037]-[0038]), is a routine sequencing that yields the predictable result of configuring the device before use. MPEP § 2143(A).
6. Claims 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara in view of Winkler and further in view of Applicants Admitted Prior Arts (hereinafter) AAPAA, as applied to claim 1 above.
In regard to claim 3, the combination teaches that the rising temperature is the temperature difference reached when the memory continues to operate at a guaranteed speed held by the memory. Sugawara teaches operating the memory at its performance capability (full/throttled read-write rates in MB/s; ¶[0022], [0025]) and Winkler teaches deriving the surface-vs-internal relationship during operation. But neither Sugawara nor Winkler teaches memory cards possess a device-specific guaranteed speed. In the same filed of endeavor, AAPA further establishes that memory cards possess a device-specific guaranteed (minimum) speed (see specification [0030], acknowledged as a value “unique to memory card 101”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to characterize the rising temperature under the continuous-guaranteed-speed operating condition so that the throttling threshold reflects the worst-case sustained thermal load, predictably preventing premature throttling during guaranteed-speed operation.
In regard to claim 4 (interpreted in light of the § 112(b) rejection), the combination teaches transmitting the setting information after receiving command information inquiring about the rising temperature (Sugawara: threshold-setting command exchange, ¶[0023]-[0024]). However AAPA: host inquiry for the rising/temperature-rise value, specification [0036], [0039]), and that where the command information includes a guaranteed speed desired by the host, the rising temperature is the temperature difference reached at that guaranteed speed. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to parameterize the inquiry by a desired guaranteed speed so that the returned rising temperature corresponds to the intended operating point, predictably enabling the host to set an appropriate threshold for that speed (MPEP § 2143(A), (G)). Winkler supplies the surface-vs-internal difference characterization as in claim 1.
In regard to claim 5, the setting information includes designation information indicating to which thermal throttling threshold among a plurality of thresholds the setting information is set. The AAPA establishes that the NVMe HCTM scheme provides a plurality of thresholds TMT1 and TMT2 (specification [0031], [0033]-[0034]); Sugawara likewise teaches first and second threshold values for light and heavy throttling (¶[0024]-[0026], blocks 225-250). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include, in the transmitted setting information, designation information identifying which of the plurality of thresholds (e.g., TMT1 vs. TMT2) is being set, so that the correct threshold is programmed - a predictable use of an addressing/designation field. MPEP § 2143(A).
In regard to claim 6, Sugawara discloses a host device (110) connected to a recording medium (120), the host device comprising a control unit (host processor executing BIOS 130/thermal-criteria logic; ¶[0020]-[0021]), wherein the control unit receives setting information and transmits a threshold temperature calculated to the recording medium (host stores/provides threshold temperature value(s) to storage device; ¶[0021]-[0022], claim 15: “sending to the storage device, one or more threshold temperature values”). Sugawara does not expressly disclose that the setting information includes a rising temperature that is a temperature difference between a surface and an inside of the recording medium, nor that the host calculates the threshold based on that rising temperature and a convergence temperature (a controllable surface temperature during continuous guaranteed-speed operation).
Winkler supplies the surface-vs-internal (ambient-vs-component) temperature characterization (Abstract; col. 2-6; claim 1). And AAPA supplies host-side computation of the throttling threshold within device-advertised bounds (MXTMT) and the concept of a controllable device surface temperature via host cooling (fan) control (specification ¶ [0033]-[0034]; and the host-side threshold-calculation is analogous to NVMe host-controlled thermal management setting TMT within MXTMT).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure Sugawara’s host to receive a Winkler-type surface-vs-internal rising temperature and to calculate the threshold temperature as the sum of a host-assumed/controllable convergence (surface) temperature and the reported rising temperature (optionally plus a margin), bounded by the device maximum (MXTMT, AAPA). The motivation is to place the throttling threshold accurately relative to the true internal temperature the device will reach at the desired guaranteed speed - improving sustained throughput and avoiding both premature throttling and overheating (Winkler Abstract; Sugawara ¶[0004]-[0005]; AAPA [0033]-[0034]). This is a combination of known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR; MPEP § 2143(A).
In regard to claim 7, Sugawara discloses the recording medium (memory 150, controller/control unit 140, and communicating interface) that receives command information from the host and receives a threshold temperature of thermal throttling from the host, and whose control unit controls operation based on that threshold - mapped as in claim 1 above (¶[0020]-[0025]; claims 8, 10). Claim 7 differs from claim 1 in that (i) the received command information includes a convergence temperature (a temperature controllable during continuous host operation), and (ii) the transmitted setting information includes a threshold temperature calculated by the control unit on the card side based on the convergence temperature and the surface-vs-inside rising temperature.
Sugawara does not expressly disclose the card-side calculation of the threshold from a host-provided convergence temperature and a surface-vs-inside rising temperature.
Winkler supplies deriving the surface-vs-internal composite/relationship on the device side using the device’s own processor (Winkler: device processor determines composite temperature from ambient + component sensors - an on-device computation; Abstract; col. 2-6; claim 1). And AAPA supplies (a) the convergence/controllable surface-temperature concept and host cooling control, and (b) the threshold-computation-plus-margin bounded by MXTMT (specification ¶ [0033]-[0034], [0050]-[0056]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to relocate the threshold computation to Sugawara’s device-side controller - Sugawara already teaches device-side (rather than host-side) throttling control (Sugawara Title; ¶[0004]-[0005]) - so that the device, using Winkler’s on-device surface-vs-internal derivation and a host-supplied convergence temperature, computes and returns the throttling threshold. Automating/relocating a known calculation to the controller that already governs throttling is a predictable design choice that reduces host dependency (Sugawara’s stated benefit of device-side control when the host OS is unavailable; ¶[0004]); it yields the predictable result of a device-computed, accurately-placed threshold. KSR; MPEP § 2143(A), (C).
In regard to claim 8, which depends from claim 7 and recites the same initialization-timing limitation as claim 2, Sugawara teaches that a pre-defined command from the host sets the threshold value(s) after the device powers on and initializes to an operational state (¶[0023]-[0024], block 210 “system may power on,” block 215 “pre-defined command from the host computing device”). Sugawara does not use the precise phrase “after an initialization command is received … and initialization processing is completed,” but it would have been obvious that transmitting setting information following device power-on/initialization and before normal operation, as is conventional in NVMe device bring-up (AAPA ¶[0037]-[0038]), is a routine sequencing that yields the predictable result of configuring the device before use, for the same reasons given as to claim 2. MPEP § 2143(A).
In regard to claim 9, which depends from claim 7 and recites the same guaranteed-speed rising-temperature limitation as claim 3, Sugawara teaches operating the memory at its performance capability (full/throttled read-write rates in MB/s; ¶[0022], [0025]), and Winkler teaches deriving the surface-vs-internal relationship during operation (Abstract; col. 2-6; claim 1); Sugawara does not itself characterize that relationship under continuous-guaranteed-speed operation, but the AAPA establishes that memory cards possess a device-specific guaranteed (minimum) speed (specification [0030], acknowledged as a value “unique to memory card 101”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to characterize the rising temperature - here, as calculated card-side per claim 7 - under the continuous-guaranteed-speed operating condition so that the threshold reflects the worst-case sustained thermal load, predictably preventing premature throttling during guaranteed-speed operation, for the same reasons given as to claim 3.
In regard to claim 10, which depends from claim 7 and recites the same conditional guaranteed-speed inquiry limitation as claim 4 (interpreted in light of the § 112(b) rejection), the combination teaches transmitting the setting information after receiving command information inquiring about the rising temperature (Suguwara: threshold-setting command exchange, ¶[0023]-[0024]; AAAPA: host inquiry for the rising/temperature-rise value, specification [0036], [0039]), and that where the command information includes a guaranteed speed desired by the host, the rising temperature is the temperature difference reached at that guaranteed speed. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to parameterize the inquiry by a desired guaranteed speed so that the returned rising temperature - here, as calculated card-side per claim 7 - corresponds to the intended operating point, predictably enabling the host to obtain an accurately-targeted rising temperature for that speed (MPEP § 2143(A), (G)), for the same reasons given as to claim 4.
In regard to claim 11, (interpreted per the § 112(b) rejection), as returning an error/notification when the calculated threshold exceeds the maximum settable value), the AAPA teaches that the threshold cannot exceed MXTMT and that an error/notification is returned when the calculated threshold is not less than MXTMT (specification ¶ [0033], [0056]-[0057], step S807). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to return such a notification as setting information so the host can adjust (e.g., increase cooling / lower guaranteed speed) - a predictable error-handling measure. MPEP § 2143(A).
In regard to claim 12, the setting information includes, in addition to the calculated threshold temperature, designation information indicating to which of a plurality of thermal throttling thresholds the setting information is set - obvious for the same reasons as claim 5 (plurality TMT1/TMT2 per AAPA; designation field a predictable addressing measure).
In regard to claim 13, the control unit calculates a plurality of threshold temperatures and the setting information includes the plurality - obvious in view of AAPA’s plural thresholds TMT1 and TMT2 (specification [0031], [0060]-[0062]); computing and returning both thresholds is a predictable extension of computing one.
In regard to claim 14, Sugawara discloses a host device (110) with a control unit that transmits command information to the recording medium and transmits threshold temperature value(s) to it (¶[0021]-[0022]; claim 15). Claim 14 differs in that the command information includes a convergence temperature, the host receives setting information including a threshold temperature calculated by the recording medium based on the convergence temperature and a surface-vs-inside rising temperature, and the host transmits that threshold back as the thermal-throttling threshold. Sugawara does not expressly teach the convergence-temperature command or the card-calculated-threshold return.
Winkler supplies the surface-vs-internal characterization computed on the storage device. And AAPA supplies the convergence-temperature/cooling-control concept and the round-trip of a computed throttling threshold within MXTMT bounds (specification ¶ [0033]-[0034], [0047]-[0057]). It would have been obvious, for the reasons stated for claims 6 and 7, to configure Sugawara’s host to send a convergence temperature, receive a device-calculated threshold, and program it back as the throttling threshold - a predictable division of labor between host and device serving accurate threshold placement and sustained throughput. KSR; MPEP § 2143(A).
In regard to claim 15, the host receives setting information including a plurality of threshold temperatures and transmits the plurality as a plurality of thermal throttling thresholds - obvious in view of AAPA’s plural TMT1/TMT2 (specification ¶ [0060]-[0062]); handling plural thresholds is a predictable extension. MPEP § 2143(A).
In regard to claim 16, (interpreted per the § 112(b) rejection), Sugawara discloses the recording medium (memory 150, control unit 140, communicating interface) that receives a threshold temperature of thermal throttling from the host and controls operation based thereon (¶[0020]-[0025]). Claim 16 differs in that the transmitted setting information includes (i) a relationship between a thermal throttling threshold and a guaranteed speed, and (ii) a relationship between a convergence temperature, the guaranteed speed, and an internal temperature of the recording medium - i.e., the “correspondence tables.” Sugawara does not teach transmitting these relationship tables.
Winkler teaches that the device relates internal (component) temperature and surface (ambient) temperature and derives a composite used against thresholds (Abstract; col. 2-6; claim 1), i.e., a device-held relationship among surface temperature, internal temperature, and threshold. The AAPA teaches that thresholds TMT1/TMT2 correspond to guaranteed speeds and that internal temperature at continuous guaranteed-speed operation depends on convergence (surface) temperature and speed (specification [0031], [0074]-[0086]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have Sugawara’s device hold and transmit such correspondence relationships (a table form of the same surface/internal/threshold/speed dependencies taught by Winkler and the AAPA) so the host can select an appropriate threshold and cooling setpoint for a desired guaranteed speed - a predictable use of a lookup relationship to configure throttling. KSR; MPEP § 2143(A).
In regard to claim 17, depends from claim 16 and additionally recites the same initialization-timing limitation as claim 2 - that the setting information is transmitted after an initialization command is received and initialization processing is completed. As with claim 2, Sugawara teaches that a pre-defined command from the host sets the threshold value(s) after the device powers on and initializes to an operational state (¶[0023]-[0024], blocks 210, 215); Sugawara does not use that precise claim phrasing, but it would have been obvious that transmitting the correspondence-table setting information of claim 16 following device power-on/initialization, as is conventional in NVMe device bring-up (AAPA ¶[0037]-[0038]), is a routine, predictable sequencing. MPEP § 2143(A).
In regard to claim 18, (interpreted per the § 112(b) rejection), Sugawara discloses a host device with a control unit that receives setting information from and transmits threshold value(s) to the recording medium (¶[0021]-[0022]; claim 15). Claim 18 differs in that the received setting information includes the two relationships (threshold between guaranteed speed; and convergence temperature ↔ guaranteed speed ↔ internal temperature), and the control unit calculates a threshold temperature and selection information (selecting one of a plurality of thresholds) from those relationships, and transmits the selection information and the threshold to the medium.
Winkler supplies the surface/internal-temperature relationship and its use for threshold determination (Abstract; col. 2-6; claim 1). And AAPA supplies the plurality of thresholds (TMT1/TMT2) with per-threshold guaranteed speeds, the convergence-temperature/internal-temperature dependence, and host selection of a threshold based on the desired guaranteed speed and the MXTMT bound (specification ¶ [0031], [0074]-[0091]; and the host-side worked examples of selecting TMT2 vs. TMT1 for 400 vs. 600 Mbyte/sec, [0087]-[0090]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure Sugawara’s host to compute, from the received relationships, both the threshold temperature and selection information designating which of the plural thresholds to program, and to transmit both - a predictable use of lookup relationships to choose and set the correct throttling threshold for a target guaranteed speed. KSR; MPEP § 2143(A), (C).
In regard to claim 19, the control unit calculates an internal temperature related to a desired guaranteed speed from the desired speed and the convergence ↔ speed ↔ internal-temperature relationship, calculates the threshold from that internal temperature, and calculates the selection information from the desired-speed ↔ threshold ↔ speed relationship. This is the host-side worked computation expressly described in the AAPA (specification ¶ [0087]-[0091]) applied to the received relationships, and would have been obvious as a predictable arithmetic use of the relationships to place and select the threshold.
In regard to claim 20, (interpreted per the § 112(b) rejection), the threshold calculation includes calculating a convergence temperature related to the desired guaranteed speed from the desired speed, a maximum settable throttling temperature, and the convergence of speed and internal-temperature relationship, and the control unit operates a cooling function according to that convergence temperature. AAPA teaches computing the required convergence (surface) temperature to keep the internal temperature within MXTMT and operating the host cooling component (fan 102) to achieve that surface temperature (specification ¶ [0033]-[0034], [0091]-[0092], [0106]). It would have been obvious to operate the host cooling function to realize the computed convergence temperature so the desired guaranteed speed is achievable without exceeding MXTMT - a predictable closed-loop use of the host cooling capability. KSR; MPEP § 2143(A).
Examiner's note:
Examiner has cited particular columns 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 passages as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
7. All claims are rejected.
8. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fujimori et al., US 2021/0279006, teach recording control apparatus and method for controlling recording control apparatus. Directly corresponds to Applicant’s cited PTL 1 (JP 2021-87204); sets a function-restriction (throttling) temperature threshold within a settable range of the recording medium.
Gwin et al., US 11,182,100, teach SSD temperature control technique; managing internal die thermal profile and composite/subset temperature reporting.
Redaelli et al., US 12,366,968, teach host device controlled low temperature thermal throttling; device transmits a temperature indication and host issues throttling commands based on a temperature threshold.
Redaelli et al., US 12,455,691, teach memory device controlled low temperature thermal throttling; device-initiated throttling relative to a host-related threshold.
Yum et al., US 10,761,501/US 11,435,711, teach storage device and temperature control of electronic device; single-bit/host-coordinated thermal control.
Xiong et al., US 2022/0374059/US 11,934,238, teach customized thermal throttling using environmental conditions; adjusting throttling to environment.
Kam et al., US 2016/0378149/US 10,275,001, teach thermal throttling of electronic devices; junction-temperature thresholds with a ΔT margin (Tj,max − ΔT) tied to a bandwidth/performance guarantee.
Thangaraj et al., US 2016/0117105/US 9,916,087, teach method and system for throttling bandwidth based on temperature.
Kamepalli et al., US 11,017,823, teach dynamic adjustment of SSD critical temperature threshold based on memory size.
Hussain et al., US 6,172,611, teach independent hardware thermal sensing with internal (INT_TEMP) and external (EXT_TEMP) temperature registers and programmable setpoints.
Hosking et al., US 2012/0134387, teach communications device with integrated case temperature measurement; case-surface temperature estimated from internal component temperature via a stored offset, made readable by a host.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Raymond Phan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3630. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 6:30AM- 3:00PM. The Group Fax No. (571) 273-8300.
Communications via Internet e-mail regarding this application, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used by the applicant and should be addressed to [raymond.phan@uspto.gov].
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 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.
All Internet e-mail communications will be made of record in the application file. PTO employees do not engage in Internet communications where there exists a possibility that sensitive information could be identified or exchanged unless the record includes a properly signed express waiver of the confidentiality requirements of 35 U.S.C. 122. This is more clearly set forth in the Interim Internet Usage Policy published in the Official Gazette of the Patent and Trademark on February 25, 1997 at 1195 OG 89.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see hop://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC 2100 central telephone number is (571) 272-2100.
/RAYMOND N PHAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights