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 .
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 to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 7-8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Campbell 2015/0036288) in view of (Shedd 2016/0120019).
Regarding Claim 1; Campbell discloses a datacenter cooling system (as set forth by para.’s 0003 and 0027), comprising: a chemical property monitoring subsystem (CPMS) (a CPMS as constituted by a controller-950-Fig. 9, and/or where a modular cooling unit (MCU) is designed to provide coolant of a controlled temperature, pressure, as well as controlled chemistry-- as set forth by para. 0033) associated with one flow controller comprising one valve (wherein the control valve 940-Fig. 9 which is an electronic valve is associated between the MCU-620 and a node-level condensation module, and para.’s 0057 and 0060; wherein a control process implemented by the controller-950 for controlling the control valve in a dynamically adjustable control valve implementation to automatically adjust and reduce/increase coolant flow to control vapor quality using system coolant flowrate and temperature), the CPMS to determine a first change in suggested electrical conductivity associated with a coolant of the datacenter cooling system from a first state to a second state (as set forth by para.’s 0057—whereas a first change is constituted by high vapor quality which causes the valve to adjust and increase coolant flow to a node condensation module; and a second state is constituted by a low vapor quality which causes the valve to adjust and reduce facility coolant to the condensation module—as further depicted by Fig. 10, and wherein the electronic valve is set based on power within a given electronic subsystem from which the vapor quality is estimated for the system coolant and the coolant flowrate and temperature changes thereof—as further set forth by para. 0061), based sensor measurements, the one flow controller to adjust settings the one valve (whereas para.’s 0057 discloses the vapor quality of the first state and the second state and the corresponding valve adjustments are determined by processing based on a flowrate sensor and a temperature sensor) to cause the suggested electrical conductivity associated with the coolant to be restored from the second state to the first state based in part on the determined first change (as already set forth by para.’s 0057—processing then waits before again evaluating the flowrate and the change in temperature, and if the vapor quality is high then the first state thereof is again determined). Except, Campbell does not explicitly disclose an actual change in electrical conductivity associated with the coolant. However, Shedd discloses electrical conductivity associated with the coolant (whereas para. 0380 discloses a valve electronically controlled via a microcontroller based on feedback from a flowrate sensor, a temperature sensor and/or a vapor quality sensor, wherein para. 0024 discloses the vapor quality sensor outputs a signal correlating to vapor quality of coolant in which the sensor is capacitance based that determines the dielectric constant of coolant), and thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify an electrical conductivity associated with the coolant since it was known in the art that an enhanced determination of vapor quality will be achieved via a capacitance based sensor determining a dielectric constant of coolant so as enhance inputs to the controller so as to maintain an efficient operation upon failure of flowrate and/or temperature sensors. Note: “electrical conductivity associated with coolant” does not necessitate an electrical conductivity of coolant and does not denote a direct association of an attribute of coolant, and thus varying direct or indirect associations are applicable. Further Note: CPMS does not explicitly denote monitoring a chemical property, and thus a first state and second state does not explicitly denote a change in chemistry—if so intended; and otherwise denotes i.e. flow rate, coolant flowing, a disclosed by applicant--para. 0053.
Regarding Claim 2; Campbell discloses the already modified datacenter cooling system of claim 1, further comprising: at least one controller associated with the CPMS to determine the first change in the electrical conductivity associated with the coolant using the sensor measurements (as already set forth), the at least one controller to enable the one or more flow controllers to reduce a flow rate of the coolant as part of the restoration from the second state to the first state (as already set forth). Except, Campbell does not explicitly disclose the controller is a processor. However, Shedd discloses a controller is a processor (whereas para. 0024 already disclose a controller as a microcontroller), and thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the controller as a processor since it was known in the art that the system may explicitly employ a processor so as to enhance input/output flexibility and/or software control and updates thereof to increase cooling efficiency.
Regarding Claim 7; Campbell discloses the already modified datacenter cooling system of claim 1, further comprising: the controller to cause at least one of the flow controllers to cause a flow rate of the coolant in response to the determined first change in the electrical conductivity associated with the coolant (as already set forth). Except, Campbell does not explicitly disclose the controller is a processor. However, Shedd discloses a controller is a processor (whereas para. 0024 already disclose a controller as a microcontroller to receive feedback from a flowrate sensor), and thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the controller as a processor to alter flow rate since it was known in the art that the flow conditions may be altered including increasing flow rate when vapor quality is high so as to improve cooling efficiency.
Regarding Claim 8; Campbell discloses the already modified datacenter cooling system of claim 1, wherein the restoration from the second state to the first state is achieved by a change in a coolant flow rate (as already set forth).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, and 7-8 have been considered but are moot; whereas new rejections are herein presented to read on the amended claim language. The office hereby notes that as pre the interview held on 3/27/25, wherein the office agreed as a courtesy to examine a different claim construction including “electrical conductivity” which is herein deemed as constructively elected, and thus all other claim constructions defined by other of the OR-conditions etc are nonelected. If the applicant intends to further limit the claim construction then all other features shall be presented in addition to the elected construction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9094. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5p.
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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/COURTNEY L SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835