DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
The claims received 12/22/2025 are entered. Claims 2, 4-9, 11-14, 17-18, 20-21, and 25 are cancelled. Claims 26-36 new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 29 recites “monotonic function” which is not found in the original disclosure.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, 10, 19, 24, and 26-36 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tozer (US 9,179,580), in view of Smith et al (US 7,439,702), and in further view of Babington (US 4,495,777), Miller et al (US 2005/0223720), and/or Morales et al (US 8,151,578).
Regarding claims 1 and 30, Tozer discloses a cooling system comprising:
a first fluid circuit (108 of figure 1) including a first heat exchanger (306 of figure 3) configured to cool electronic equipment (within data center modules 110) using a fluid flowing through the first fluid circuit,
a second fluid circuit (circuit containing 318 and 306 of figure 3) configured to cool the first fluid using a second fluid that is free cooled by atmospheric air (at cooling tower 318); and
a third fluid circuit (309) including a compressor (312) and a second heat exchanger (310 or 316), the third fluid circuit configured to mechanically cool the second fluid;
a sensing assembly configured to generate a sensed signal representative of the ambient air conditions (Tozer discusses utilizing the third fluid circuit when free cooling can’t achieve cooling below 17°C 4:10-30 thus the sensed temperature is representative of the ambient air conditions); and
a controller (317) in communication with the sensing assembly and the compressor (312 which is part of chiller unit 309), the controller including a processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the controller to:
determine a temperature based on the temperature signal;
compare the determined temperature to a threshold temperature (4:22 “17 degrees Celsius” as an example); and
control operation of the compressor (4:29), by the controller, such that the mechanical cooling is enabled when the determined temperature is at or above the threshold temperature (4:15-30).
Tozer lacks using the first refrigerant to cool an inverter of a variable frequency drive of the compressor.
Smith discloses a chiller fluid circuit including a compressor (302) to compress the fluid therein, wherein a portion of another fluid flowing through another fluid circuit is directed to cool and inverter of a variable frequency drive (104; 4:63-66 the VSD 104 contains an inverter which is also cooled by the another fluid) configured to drive a motor (106) of the at least one compressor (302). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Tozer with the use of a cooling fluid to cool the compressor drive (VSD/VFD and inverter thereof) as taught by Smith in order to enhance system efficiency by reducing losses and preventing overheating damage and further to allow for variable cooling delivery based on demand, e.g. increased cooling capacity from the refrigeration cycle based on reduced cooling from the free-cooling arrangement.
Further regarding adjusting compressor speed based on a wet bulb temperature of the atmospheric air. Tozer discloses that the compressor speed is adjusted based on the chilled water temperature (4:7-30) where ambient conditions control the capacity to perform free cooling (4:21-24). Thus Tozer controls the compressor speed based on the chilled water temperature which is controlled by ambient conditions, e.g. wet bulb temperature, but does not state that the compressor is controlled by wet bulb temperature directly.
For this reason Babington, Miller, and Morales are provided.
Babington discloses a similar mechanical and free-cooling system which controls activation of the compressor based on atmospheric temperature (sensed by 46). Babington goes on to state that “Wet bulb temperature is preferred since it gives a more realistic operation of the system” and results in the “most efficient operation” (4:63-68) in comparison to mere dry bulb temperature. Moreover Babington provides that wet bulb temperature is a known alternative to using the water temperature (4:63-67).
Miller discloses adjusting the variable speed drive (VSD) of a compressor in response to wet bulb temperature ([0004]).
Morales discloses a data center cooling system which includes a wet-bulb sensing assembly (“In certain embodiments, different properties, such as wet bulb temperature, may be used as control conditions instead of, or in addition to, enthalpy” 13:42-45), a controller (figures 2-3 show control scheme) configured to determine a wet-bulb temperature (202; “measure air characteristics”), compare the determined wet-bulb temperature to a threshold (step 208 includes comparison to a set point, as quoted above enthalpy may also include wet-bulb temperature), and control operation of the compressor in response (operate in mechanical mode at step 216).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Tozer with the wet bulb temperature input for compressor control, rather than the generically stated “ambient conditions”, as taught by Babington, Miller, and/or Morales in order to provide more accurate representation of the ambient air capacity to cool and provide the most efficient operation in an effort to optimize use of free-cooling.
It has been held that a "simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” is obvious. In this instance the prior art provides for the element of wet bulb temperature as a control input. It is known in the art to substitute water temperature of a coolant loop for wet bulb temperature as a control input (as evidenced by Babington). The result of the substitution would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 B.
Regarding claims 10 and 33, Tozer discloses a method of cooling electronic equipment, comprising:
cooling, by a first fluid circuit (108 of figure 1) including a first heat exchanger (306 of figure 3) electronic equipment (within data center modules 110) using a first fluid;
cooling, by a second fluid circuit (circuit containing 318 and 306 of figure 3) the first fluid using a second fluid that is free cooled by atmospheric air (at cooling tower 318);
mechanically cooling, by a third fluid circuit (309) including a compressor (312) and a second heat exchanger (310 or 316);
sensing ambient air conditions (Tozer discusses utilizing the third fluid circuit when free cooling can’t achieve cooling below 17°C 4:10-30 thus the sensed temperature is representative of the ambient air conditions);
generating a temperature signal;
determining, by a controller (317), a temperature based on the temperature signal
comparing, by the controller, the determined temperature to a threshold temperature (4:22 “17 degrees Celsius” as an example); and
controlling operation of the compressor (4:29), by the controller, such that the mechanical cooling is enabled when (contingent limitation) the determined temperature is at or above the threshold temperature (4:15-30); and
varying a speed of compressing of the refrigerant by the motor of the compressor (4:29 “controlling the compressor 312 speed”) based on a temperature of the atmospheric air (4:23-24 “ambient conditions do not allow for sufficient free cooling” where ambient conditions are understood to include the temperature of ambient environment).
Tozer lacks using the first fluid to cool an inverter of a variable frequency drive of the compressor.
Smith discloses a chiller fluid circuit including a compressor (302) to compress the fluid therein, wherein a portion of another fluid flowing through another fluid circuit is directed to cool and inverter of a variable frequency drive (104; 4:63-66 the VSD 104 contains an inverter which is also cooled by the another fluid) configured to drive a motor (106) of the at least one compressor (302). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Tozer with the use of a cooling fluid to cool the compressor drive (VSD/VFD and inverter thereof) as taught by Smith in order to enhance system efficiency by reducing losses and preventing overheating damage.
Further regarding adjusting compressor speed based on a wet bulb temperature of the atmospheric air. Tozer discloses that the compressor speed is adjusted based on the chilled water temperature (4:7-30) where ambient conditions control the capacity to perform free cooling (4:21-24). Thus Tozer controls the compressor speed based on the chilled water temperature which is controlled by ambient conditions, e.g. wet bulb temperature, but does not state that the compressor is controlled by wet bulb temperature directly.
For this reason Babington, Miller, and Morales are provided.
Babington discloses a similar mechanical and free-cooling system which controls activation of the compressor based on atmospheric temperature (sensed by 46). Babington goes on to state that “Wet bulb temperature is preferred since it gives a more realistic operation of the system” and results in the “most efficient operation” (4:63-68) in comparison to mere dry bulb temperature. Moreover Babington provides that wet bulb temperature is a known alternative to using the water temperature (4:63-67).
Miller discloses adjusting the variable speed drive (VSD) of a compressor in response to wet bulb temperature ([0004]).
Morales discloses a data center cooling system which includes a wet-bulb sensing assembly (“In certain embodiments, different properties, such as wet bulb temperature, may be used as control conditions instead of, or in addition to, enthalpy” 13:42-45), a controller (figures 2-3 show control scheme) configured to determine a wet-bulb temperature (202; “measure air characteristics”), compare the determined wet-bulb temperature to a threshold (step 208 includes comparison to a set point, as quoted above enthalpy may also include wet-bulb temperature), and control operation of the compressor in response (operate in mechanical mode at step 216).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Tozer with the wet bulb temperature input for compressor control, rather than the generically stated “ambient conditions”, as taught by Babington, Miller, and/or Morales in order to provide more accurate representation of the ambient air capacity to cool and provide the most efficient operation in an effort to optimize use of free-cooling.
It has been held that a "simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” is obvious. In this instance the prior art provides for the element of wet bulb temperature as a control input. It is known in the art to substitute water temperature of a coolant loop for wet bulb temperature as a control input (as evidenced by Babington). The result of the substitution would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 B.
Contingent Limitation:
Pertinent to the bold italicized limitation above is MPEP 2111.04, II which states the following:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
The step of mechanically cooling is contingent upon a wet bulb temperature and is therefore not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim(s). See MPEP 2111.04, II.
Regarding claim 19, Tozer discloses sensing the temperature of the free-cooled fluid (2:40-45 and 3:17-28 the system must sense the temperature in order to know to activate the mechanical chiller) and regulating a flow rate of a third fluid (fluid which flows through cooling tower 318) as a function of the temperature of the free-cooled first fluid (the actuation of valve 321 at controls the flow rate of the third fluid through or not through the condenser 316 as a function of the first fluid).
Regarding claim 24, Tozer discloses the first fluid includes water (2:9).
Regarding claims 26, 27, and 34, Tozer as modified discloses the system/method of claims 1, 10, and 33 but lacks a dry bulb temperature sensor and a humidity sensor. Morales lists dry bulb temperature and humidity as additional/alternative air characteristics for wet bulb temperature (13:14-19). It has been held that a "simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” is obvious. In this instance the prior art provides for the element of wet bulb temperature sensing. It is known in the art to substitute wet bulb for dry bulb and humidity sensing. The result of the substitution would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 B.
Regarding claims 28 and 35, Tozer, as modified, further discloses the controlling operation of the compressor includes disabling power delivery from the variable frequency drive (provided by Smith) to the motor of the compressor when the determined wet-bulb temperature is below the threshold wet bulb temperature (4:10-30 of Tozer discloses deactivating mechanical cooling, i.e. the compressor, when temperature is sufficiently low, as modified above the control is based on wet-bulb temperature rather than water temperature).
Regarding claims 29 and 36, Tozer is silent concerning a monotonic function for the compressor rotational speed. However it follows that the compressor switching from an off condition to an on condition, at least for a time, is monotonic. Which is to say the compressor speed only increases from being off or having a zero speed to an on speed. Alternatively it is understood that the compressor speed corresponds to the cooling capacity of the refrigeration cycle for given conditions. The examiner takes official notice that it is known to increase compressor speed in response to a demand for increased cooling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the compressor speed as a monotonic function of the wet-bulb temperature in order to increase cooling from the refrigeration cycle when the ambient conditions provide a decreased capacity to provide free cooling.
Regarding claims 31 and 32, Tozer as modified discloses the system/method of claims 1 and 10. Tozer discloses a threshold temperature of 17 degrees Celsius for the return water. Tozer was modified at claims 1 and 10 to utilize wet bulb temperature rather than return water temperature for control. It is well understood that the return water temperature as cooled by the free cooling arrangement may asymptote to the outdoor air temperature. It has been held that the optimization of a result-effective variable is obvious. In this instance wet-bulb temperature corresponds to the capacity of the ambient air to provide free-cooling. Therefor because wet bulb temperature threshold is recognized as effecting the result of capacity to cool the first fluid; the value of 17.2C is not a product of innovation but of ordinary skill and is obvious.
Claims 3 and 15-16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tozer (US 9,179,580), in view of Smith et al (US 7,439,702), in view of Babington (US 4,495,777), Miller et al (US 2005/0223720), and/or Morales et al (US 8,151,578), and in view of Grant et al (US 3,013,403).
Regarding claims 3 and 15-16, Tozer discloses the second fluid circuit is in thermal communication with the fluid (at evaporator 310 of figure 3) and another fluid (flowing through cooling tower 318) dissipating the heat of condensation from the refrigerant (at condenser 316). Tozer lacks that the first fluid circuit includes a receiver. Grant discloses a first fluid circuit (containing compressor 7) includes a fluid receiver (6) further comprising a second (27 and 40) configured to sense a liquid level of the first fluid contained in the fluid receiver (6); and a second fluid circuit (containing compressor 9), which compresses, condenses, expands and evaporates the second refrigerant in thermal communication with the first fluid contained in the fluid receiver (6), the second fluid circuit configured to mechanically cool the first refrigerant when the sensed liquid level falls below a predetermined liquid level (3:54-60 and 4:12-39). It would have been obvious to have substituted the chilled water circuit of Tozer for a vapor compression circuit as taught by Grant, which includes a receiver, in order to gain staged active cooling of a target area allowing the system to sufficiently cool even in very high ambient temperatures. It then follows that the second fluid circuit of Tozer will activate for the same reasons as the second fluid circuit of Grant (i.e. when the receiver has a low liquid level which is indicative of high ambient temperatures where Tozer teaches to active the second fluid circuit in high ambient temperatures 4:10-30).
Claims 22 and 23 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tozer (US 9,179,580), in view of Smith et al (US 7,439,702), in view of Babington (US 4,495,777), Miller et al (US 2005/0223720), and/or Morales (US 8,151,578), and in view of Stark et al (US 2004/0237554).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Modified Tozer discloses utilizing the first refrigerant to enable heat transfer from the inverter to the first fluid (as modified by Smith). Tozer lacks a temperature sensor for the inverter and diverting coolant when the temperature sensor is above a predetermined temperature. Stark discloses a temperature sensor (34) for determining the temperature of a VFD (which includes an inverter) and in response to the determination diverting a portion of refrigerant to enable heat transfer from the inverter to the refrigerant ([0020]). It would have been obvious to have provided the system of modified Tozer with control of cooling the VFD as taught by Stark in order to prevent overheating of the VFD and further to increase efficiency by reducing cooling when not required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
At page 12 it is discussed that Tozer controls the activation of the compressor based on the return water temperature citing to 17C as the threshold to activate mechanical cooling whereas below said temperature free-cooling is sufficient.
Further on page 12 applicant asserts that Babington and Miller do not provide specific control architecture. However Tozer already provides for sensing and determining a temperature, comparing to a threshold, and in response activating the compressor. The modification of Miller and Babington provide for the use of wet bulb temperature rather than return water temperature. Nonetheless Morales is provided to disclose the comparison of a detected wet-bulb temperature to a threshold in regard to computer cooling.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dudley (US 5,095,715) – adjusting compressor speed based on outdoor temperature.
Henney (US 2,320,432) – adjusting compressor speed based on wet bulb temperature (page 2, col 2, particularly lines 29-55 and 72-74).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00-4:00 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on 5712707740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 http://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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763