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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/11/24 and 3/5/25 are being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statements filed includes items that fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance or an English translation, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. These are marked on each of the submitted IDS documents, and are the actions by foreign offices. These either require the explanation as sated above OR the translation.
All other references were reviewed as indicated.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/11/25.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“cooling system” in claim 1.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “system ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “cooling”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim. Note this is has the “cooling device” which falls under 112(f) thus cascading to still falling under 112(f)
“cooling device” in claim 1.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “cooling” & “for cooling the data center”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“control system” in claim 1.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “system ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “control” “for cooling the data center”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim. Note this is has the “control devices” which falls under 112(f) thus cascading to still falling under 112(f)
“control device” in claim 1.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “control” “configured to control”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“first control device” in claim 2.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “control” “configured to control”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“second control device” in claim 2.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “control” “configured to control”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“first group of cooling devices” in claim 2.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “devices” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “cooling”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“second group of cooling devices” in claim 2.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “devices” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “cooling”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“one control device” in claim 4.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “control”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim. Note this is has the “cooling control unit” and “switching unit” which both fall under 112(f) thus cascading to still falling under 112(f)
“human-machine interaction device” in claim 4.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “human-machine interaction”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“cooling control unit” in claim 4.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “unit” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “cooling control”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“switching unit” in claim 4.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “unit ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “switching” & “configured to control switching”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“primary power distribution device” in claim 5.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “configured to connect” & “distribution”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“high voltage direct current device” in claim 5.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “direct current” & “configured to convert”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“secondary power distribution device” in claim 5.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “distribution” & “configured to provide”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“coolant distribution unit” in claim 6.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “unit” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “coolant distribution” & “configured to form a coolant circulation pipeline for “, and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“evaporative condensation assembly” in claim 7.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “assembly” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “evaporative condensation” & “configured to dissipate”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“power assembly” in claim 7.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “assembly” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “power” & “configured to provide refrigerant power”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“spraying device in claim 8.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “spraying” & “configured to spray”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“ventilation device” in claim 8.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “ventilation” & “configured to provide heat dissipation airflow”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“heating device” in claim 8.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “heating” & “to start heating when”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“immersion liquid circulation device” in claim 9.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “circulation” & “enable…circulation”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“purification device” in claim 10.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “purification” & “purify the immersion liquid”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
“replenishment device” in claim 10.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device ” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “replenishment” & “replenish an amount”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures , material or acts for performing the claimed function in the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Review of the specification found the following structure for each of the above identified limitations:
Cooling system (claims 1,4) – multiple heat exchangers (para. 0036 and below)
Cooling device (claims 1,2,4,6) – a heat exchanger (para. 0036)
Control system (claims 1,2,10) – no specific structure was found see control device below as at best it is a plurality of these additional 112(f) structure, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Control device (claims 1,4)– no specific structure was found, at best this merely referenced other 112(f) structure (human-machine interaction device/cooling control unit/switching unit), thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
first control device (claims 2-3) - no specific structure was found, at best this merely referenced other 112(f) structure (human-machine interaction device/cooling control unit/switching unit), thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Second control device (claims 2-3) - no specific structure was found, at best this merely referenced other 112(f) structure (human-machine interaction device/cooling control unit/switching unit), thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
First group of cooling devices (claim 2)– heat exchangers per para. 0021 and 0036.
Second group of cooling devices (claim 2) – heat exchangers per para. 0021 and 0036.
One control device (claim 4)- no specific structure was found, at best this merely referenced other 112(f) structure (human-machine interaction device/cooling control unit/switching unit), thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Human-machine interaction device (claim 4) – no specific structured was found, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Cooling control unit (claim 4) - no specific structured was found, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Switching Unit (claim 4) - no specific structured was found, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Primary power distribution device (claim 5)- no specific structured was found, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
High voltage direct current device (claim 5) - no specific structured was found, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Secondary power distribution device (claim 5) - no specific structured was found, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Coolant distribution Unit (claim 6 ) - no specific structured was found, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Evaporative condensation assembly (claim 7) – this was defined as “a condenser, a spraying device, a ventilation device” in paragraph 0037. Note that both spraying device and ventilation device are evaluated below (neither with anything found). As such two of the three elements cited are undefined thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Power assembly (claims 7-8) – a compressor or pump per paragraph 0038.
Spraying device (claim 8) - no specific structured was found, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Ventilation device (claim 8) - no specific structured was found, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Heating device (claim 8) - no specific structured was found, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Immersion liquid circulation device (claim 9) – a pump per paragraph 0040.
Purification device (claim 10) - no specific structured was found, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Replenishment device (claim 10) - no specific structured was found, thus any possible structure capable of such will be considered to read on it.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 related to 112 (f) above
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.
Claims 1-10 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1-10 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed function of the following limitations:
Control system (claims 1,2,10)
Control device (claims 1,4)
first control device (claims 2-3)
Second control device (claims 2-3)
One control device (claim 4)
Human-machine interaction device (claim 4)
Cooling control unit (claim 4)
Switching Unit (claim 4)
Primary power distribution device (claim 5)
High voltage direct current device (claim 5)
Secondary power distribution device (claim 5)
Coolant distribution Unit (claim 6 )
Spraying device (claim 8)
Ventilation device (claim 8)
Heating device (claim 8)
Purification device (claim 10)
Replenishment device (claim 10)
The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function as claimed with a complete written description required because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the broad terms listed above, are not defined nor specifically shown with sufficient structure in applicant’s claims or specification written description. The lack of definition of the terms within the specification and the specification does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed functions in all possible claimed structures creates a lack of written description rejection. A review of the specification and drawing found no specific description or detailed drawing of the claimed structure, and as no physical description of the element is provided and no detail is shown, described, or provided thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the terms, thus there is insufficient written description of “a control unit”.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for dependence from one or more of the above claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims includes the following limitations:
Control system (claims 1,2,10)
Control device (claims 1,4)
first control device (claims 2-3)
Second control device (claims 2-3)
One control device (claim 4)
Human-machine interaction device (claim 4)
Cooling control unit (claim 4)
Switching Unit (claim 4)
Primary power distribution device (claim 5)
High voltage direct current device (claim 5)
Secondary power distribution device (claim 5)
Coolant distribution Unit (claim 6 )
Spraying device (claim 8)
Ventilation device (claim 8)
Heating device (claim 8)
Purification device (claim 10)
Replenishment device (claim 10)
which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to achieve/interpret the above limitations. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no specific description or detailed drawing of the claimed structure, and as no physical description of the element is provided and no detail is shown, described, or provided thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the terms above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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 3 and 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “abnormally” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “abnormally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One skilled in the art is given no guidance for what counts as “abnormally”, complete failure, partial failure, degraded performance, unexpected performance, minor changes in performance, etc.
The term “high voltage” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high voltage” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One skilled in thee art is given no definition or point of reference to know what would fall under the term “high voltage” for the claimed structures.
The term “insulating immersion liquid” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “insulating” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One skilled in the art is not appraised in what way or to what degree the fluid need to reach to be considered “insulating”, for example is it electrically or thermally insulating, in either case how measured ore what value is required to be considered “insulating”.
The term “cleanliness” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “cleanliness” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One skilled in thee art is given no definition or point of reference to know what would fall under the term “cleanliness” for the claimed structures.
Note claim 10 is further rejected for dependence from claim 9.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belady et al. (U.S. PGPub 2008/0270572) in view of Judge (U.S. PGPub 2015/0230367).
Regarding claim 1, Belady teaches a container data center (figures 2-4) having a data center (combo of 13 & 13a) provided in a shipping container (element 11), the container data center comprises: a cooling system (fig. 2) comprising a plurality of cooling devices (elements 16 & 14) for cooling the data center; a power supply and distribution system (fig. 6) comprising a power supply circuit (power lines shown in fig. 6) for supplying power to the data center (per fig. 6 power to server).
Belady does not teach a control system electrically connected to the cooling system and the power supply and distribution system, wherein the control system comprises a plurality of control devices, the plurality of control devices each configured to control a part of the cooling devices, and when a first part of the plurality of control devices cannot work, a working mode of a second part of the control devices is adjusted to control the plurality of the cooling devices.
Judge teaches a control system (1220) electrically connected to the cooling system and the power supply and distribution system (para. 0015), wherein the control system comprises a plurality of control devices (various “solenoid valves” see para. 0120-0122), the plurality of control devices each configured to control a part of the cooling devices (para. 0120-122), and when a first part of the plurality of control devices cannot work, a working mode of a second part of the control devices is adjusted to control the plurality of the cooling devices (para. 0174) it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing of modify Belady to include the control system and associated devices of Judge as claimed, the motivation would be to maintain proper temperature and humidity of the data center elements (para. 0005). .
Regarding claim 2, Belady taches the plurality of cooling devices comprises a first group of cooling devices (elements 14 for storage or for a group of servers) and a second group of cooling devices (elements 14 for servers or for a group of servers).
Judge further teaches the control system comprises a first control device (single one of the “solenoid valves”) and a second control device (second one of the “solenoid valves”); wherein in a cooperative mode, the first control device is configured to control the first group of cooling devices and the second control device is configured to control the second group of cooling devices (para. 0174); and when the first control device cannot work, a work mode of the second control device is adjusted to an independent mode (para. 0177), and a communication connection with the first group of cooling devices is established and the second control device is configured to control the first group of cooling devices and the second group of cooling devices and wherein each of the plurality of control devices is configured to control switching of the plurality of power supply circuits (as power is run to the devices). This combination of Belady and Judge would be done for the same reason as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Belady teaches the power supply and distribution system comprises a plurality of power supply circuits comprising a plurality of utility power supply circuits (per fig. 6), wherein each of the plurality of utility power supply circuits comprises: a primary power distribution device (SWS) configured to connect to a utility power supply line via a power cable (fig. 6); a high voltage direct current device (AC/DC shown) electrically connected to the primary power distribution device and configured to convert an alternating current introduced into the primary power distribution device into a high voltage direct current, and when a utility power supply is normal, the high voltage direct current device is used as a power supply to supply power to the data center (per Fig. 6); a battery (batteries) electrically connected to the high voltage direct current device, wherein when the utility power supply is normal, the battery is configured to be charged with an electrical energy output from the high voltage direct current device; when the utility power supply is abnormal or interrupted, the battery is used as a power supply to supply power to the data center (per Fig. 6); and a secondary power distribution device electrically connected to the high voltage direct current device and the battery, and configured to provide one or more power branch interfaces for different loads of the data center (per fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Belady teaches each of the plurality of cooling devices comprises: a heat exchange assembly provided inside the shipping container (per fig. 1-3); and an external cooling assembly (element 16) provided outside the shipping container; wherein the heat exchange assembly comprises: a heat exchanger configured to absorb heat generated during working of IT equipment of the data center (per fig. 1-3); and a coolant distribution unit in fluid communication with the heat exchanger and the external cooling assembly, and configured to form a coolant circulation pipeline for regulating a flow volume and a flow rate of coolant in the coolant circulation pipeline (per fig. 1-3).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belady et al. (U.S. PGPub 2008/0270572) in view of Judge (U.S. PGPub 2015/0230367), and further view of Day (U.S. PGPub 2005/0225936).
Regarding claim 4, Belady teaches the power supply and distribution system comprises a plurality of power supply circuits (fig. 6), switching unit (switching apparatus) electrically connected to the plurality of power supply circuits and configured to control switching of the plurality of power supply circuits (fig. 6)
Judge further teaches wherein one control device is configured with a corresponding human-machine interaction device (1221 para. 0099) and it being located in the shipping container with Belady. wherein it would have been obvious when combining the two each of the plurality of control devices is configured to control switching of the plurality of power supply circuits when the systems are integrated as that powers the control devices. Judge further teaches the control device comprises: a cooling control unit (controller para. 0015) electrically connected to the cooling system and configured to control at least part of the cooling devices in the cooling system (para. 0104), and a
Day teaches providing the control cabinet (0182) for the human-machine interaction device the human-machine interaction device is configured to display corresponding information in accordance with a control instruction from a corresponding control device and to provide an interaction interface for a user (para. 0235 “local display and adjust panel), wherein the user can trigger a corresponding user instruction or export data through the interaction interface (0235). It would have been obvious to modify Belady and Judge with the controls as taught by Day, the motivation would be local control of the device during servicing.
The limitation of the switching unit further comprises at least one reserved interface configured to facilitate expansion of a number of power supply circuits is well-known in the art as the NEC requires such (see NEC 220.87 as example).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belady et al. (U.S. PGPub 2008/0270572) in view of Judge (U.S. PGPub 2015/0230367), and further view of Blay et al. (U.S. PGPub 2021/0356221).
Regarding claim 7, Blay does not teach the external cooling assembly comprises: an evaporative condensation assembly configured to dissipate, in an evaporative cooling manner, the heat absorbed by the heat exchanger; and a power assembly configured to provide refrigeration power for the evaporative condensation assembly.
Blay teaches the external cooling assembly comprises: an evaporative condensation assembly (element 20) configured to dissipate, in an evaporative cooling manner, the heat absorbed by the heat exchanger (fig. 2); and a power assembly (element 19) configured to provide refrigeration power for the evaporative condensation assembly. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Blay to have the evaporative condensing of blay the motivation would be better control the temperature of fluids supplied to the racks/servers.
Regarding claim 8, Blay further teaches the evaporative condensation assembly comprises: a condenser connected to the power assembly (fig. 2); a spraying device (element 22A) configured to spray heat dissipation liquid to the condenser; and a ventilation device (element 26) configured to provide heat dissipation airflow to the condenser; wherein the external cooling assembly further comprises: a water collecting tray (element 39) located below the condenser and configured to collect the heat dissipation liquid sprayed by the spraying device (fig. 2); and a heating device (para. 0050 “sump heaters”) configured to start heating when a temperature of liquid in the water collecting tray is lower than a threshold.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belady et al. (U.S. PGPub 2008/0270572) in view of Judge (U.S. PGPub 2015/0230367), and further view of Lau (U.S. PGPub 2023/0062164).
Regarding claim 9, Belady does not teach a liquid cooling cabinet containing insulating immersion liquid, wherein a plurality of servers are immersed in the immersion liquid; and an immersion liquid circulation device provided on the liquid cooling cabinet and configured to enable the immersion liquid inside the liquid cooling cabinet to circulating flow and exchange heat with the heat exchanger to cool the IT equipment of the data center.
Lau teaches a liquid cooling cabinet (element 200) containing insulating immersion liquid (element 203), wherein a plurality of servers (element 201) are immersed in the immersion liquid; and an immersion liquid circulation device (element 210) provided on the liquid cooling cabinet and configured to enable the immersion liquid inside the liquid cooling cabinet to circulating flow and exchange heat with the heat exchanger to cool the IT equipment of the data center (per fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at eh time of filing to use the immersion cooling system of Lau with Belady, the motivation would be to the well-known cooling effect of immersion.
Regarding claim 10, Lau further teaches a purification device (element 211) and a replenishment device( element 217), both the purification device and the replenishment device being provided electrically connected to the control system (element 214); wherein when an amount or cleanliness of the immersion liquid in the liquid cooling cabinet is determined to not meet requirements (para. 0013), the control system is further configured to control the purification device to purify the immersion liquid, or to control the replenishment device to replenish an amount of immersion liquid into the liquid cooling cabinet (para. 0013).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson be reached on (571) 270-7740. 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./JOEL M ATTEY/ /JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763