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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 12/19/2022.
Claims 1-20 are pending, where claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/18/2023 has been filed after the filing date of the application. The submission is in-compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1, 8 and 15 recite are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the limitation “coolant is effective”. The term effective render the claims indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements are relative terms to the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art because the elements not actually disclosed or clearly defined in the specification and it is a broad term, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05b.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception: The claim(s) recite(s) “determine of coolant volume to maintain a temperature of the server at a target based on sensor data received from a sensor associated with a server temperature; and reduce server heat output in response to the determined of the coolant volume, if coolant is not effective and pump second volume of coolant from a coolant storage to the server”, as explained in detail below.
Claim 1: Ineligible
Step 1: The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. Thus, the claim is directed to the same as a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: Yes).
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine directed to a judicial exception.
Under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), whether the claim recites:
any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) ("Step 2A, Prong One"); and
additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application ("Step 2A, Prong Two").
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception with the step of “determine of coolant volume to maintain a temperature of the server at a target based on sensor data received from a sensor associated with a server temperature; and reduce server heat output in response to the determined of the coolant volume, if coolant is not effective and pump second volume of coolant from a coolant storage to the server”, as explained in detail below.
The limitations “determine of coolant volume to maintain a temperature of the server at a target based on sensor data received from a sensor associated with a server temperature; and reduce server heat output in response to the determined of the coolant volume, if coolant is not effective and pump second volume of coolant from a coolant storage to the server” are observations, and therefore recite a mental process, such as an evaluation and judgement. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a judicial exception (Step 2A Prong one: Yes).
Step 2A Prong two: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites the additional elements of “determine of coolant volume to maintain a temperature of the server at a target based on sensor data received from a sensor associated with a server temperature; and reduce server heat output in response to the determined of the coolant volume, if coolant is not effective and pump second volume of coolant from a coolant storage to the server” based on data/information collection and change functions that do not add meaningful limitations sufficient amount to significantly more (“inventive concept”) than the judicial exception, that merely further limiting the scope of abstract ideas or stating merely technical environment of these abstract ideas and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
This exception is not significant into a practical application of the exception and based on the recited additional elements of the claims (Step 2A Prong two: No).
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 2B: In addition to the steps that describe the abstract idea of “determine of coolant volume to maintain a temperature of the server at a target based on sensor data received from a sensor associated with a server temperature; and reduce server heat output in response to the determined of the coolant volume, if coolant is not effective and pump second volume of coolant from a coolant storage to the server”, the claim recites the additional limitation of obtaining and change coolant flow. This additional element taken individually represents a general purpose data collection and changing coolant flow, [as evidence discussed in the background [paragraph 0002, 30] “use of liquids to cool electronic components is being explored for its benefits over more traditional air cooling systems, as there is an increasing need to address thermal management” and/or This is analogous to such concepts identified by the courts as abstract, such as collection, analysis and display information in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, (671 F.3d 1317, 101 U.S.P.Q.2d 1785 (Fed. Cir. 2012)) and the “manipulation of data to generate additional datasets”. The additional elements obtaining and change of coolant flow are mainly based on data/information collection and coolant flow change that are not sufficient amount to significantly more (“inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. The claim recites generic computer process of coolant flow analysis/control to maintain temperature. As such, the claim is directed to a judicial exception. Accordingly, the claim is ineligible for patenting. (Step 2B: No)
As to independent Claims 8 and 15, reciting substantially similar subject matter as claim 1 for similar reasons as those outlined above, likewise do not amount to significantly more than the above noted abstract idea.
As to the dependent claims, reciting the similar elements and structure in coolant flow analysis and/or control, which does not rise to a level of significantly more than the abstract idea, and are accordingly not eligible under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2106.
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 of this title, 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 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 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 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 1-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower, et al. USPGPub No. 20120123595 A1.
As to claims 1, 8 and 15, Bower discloses An apparatus: memory; and at least one processor to execute instructions (Bower [0011-44] “flow controller 206 include hardware, software, and/or firmware configured to control the water flow based on a temperature of the water in the cooling system 204 and/or an operational condition of the server 100” [abstract] “computing device - a temperature of a processor, memory, or input/output (I/O) component” [0002-06] see Fig. 1-4) to:
determine, based on sensor data received from a sensor associated with a server, if a first volume of coolant is effective to maintain a temperature of the server at a target temperature (Bower [0002-06] “determining a temperature of a fluid coolant in a cooling system of a computing device - use a temperature sensor to determine a temperature of water exiting a cooling system of the server - temperature of a processor, memory, or input/output (I/O) component of the server determined - controlling a flow of the fluid coolant through the cooling system based on the temperature of the fluid coolant and/or the operational condition - control a valve for increasing or decreasing a flow of water through its cooling system based on the temperature of the water or an operational condition of the server” [abstract] [0011-44] see Fig. 1-4, flow controller, plurality of sensors, control valve for coolant based on temperature and operational condition of server obviously provides determine, based on sensor data received from a sensor associated with a server, if a first volume of coolant is effective to maintain a temperature of the server at a target temperature); and
in response to determining the first volume of the coolant is not effective: reduce a heat output of the server; and pump, from a coolant storage, a second volume of the coolant to the server (Bower [0002-06] “determining a temperature of a fluid coolant in a cooling system of a computing device - use a temperature sensor to determine a temperature of water exiting a cooling system of the server - temperature of a processor, memory, or input/output (I/O) component of the server determined - controlling a flow of the fluid coolant through the cooling system based on the temperature of the fluid coolant and/or the operational condition - control a valve for increasing or decreasing a flow of water through its cooling system based on the temperature of the water or an operational condition of the server” [abstract] [0011-44] see Fig. 1-4, plurality of sensors, pump, valve, control flow of water under flow diagram in Fig. 4, control valve for coolant based on temperature and operational condition of server obviously provides determining the first volume of the coolant is not effective: reduce a heat output of the server; and pump, from a coolant storage, a second volume of the coolant to the server).
It would be therefore obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that flow controller to control coolant flow based on temperature and operational condition of server are assumed as apparatus: memory; and processor to execute instructions to maintain a temperature of server at target temperature.
As to claims 2 and 9, Bower further discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the coolant storage is disposed underground (Bower [0011-44] “fluid coolant source 104 positioned outside of the rack of servers 100 to a fluid input manifold 106 for distribution in parallel to each server 100 - connected in fluid communication with the manifold 106 - pump 111 configured to move - through the manifold 106 and input fluid lines 110, and to the cooling systems of the servers 100” [0002-06] [abstract] see Fig. 1-4, fluid coolant source positioned outside obviously provides coolant storage disposed underground).
As to claims 3, 10 and 16, Bower further discloses The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the coolant storage is a cooled via passive conduction (Bower [0011-44] “fluid coolant source 104 positioned outside of the rack of servers 100 to a fluid input manifold 106 for distribution in parallel to each server 100 - connected in fluid communication with the manifold 106 - pump 111 configured to move - through the manifold 106 and input fluid lines 110, and to the cooling systems of the servers 100” [0002-06] [abstract] see Fig. 1-4, fluid coolant source positioned outside obviously provides coolant storage is a cooled via passive conduction).
As to claims 4, 11 and 17, Bower further discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the server is a first server, and the processor executes the instructions to reduce the heat output of the first server by shifting a workload on the first server to a second server (Bower (Bower [0011-44] “control the water flow based on a temperature of the water in the cooling system 204 and/or an operational condition of the server 100 - in response to determining 422 that the temperature of each monitored component is less than the respective constant values - determining whether a processor is in a mode with turbo on, or in a state with a high current or planned work load - turbo mode initiated on the fly when increased processing performance needed” [0002-06] “determining a temperature of a fluid coolant in a cooling system of a computing device - use a temperature sensor to determine a temperature of water exiting a cooling system of the server - control a valve for increasing or decreasing a flow of water through its cooling system based on the temperature of the water or an operational condition of the server” [abstract] see Fig. 1-4, flow controller, plurality of modes with turbo on, in state, high current, planned work load obviously includes reduce the heat output of the first server by shifting a workload on the first server to a second server).
As to claims 5, 12 and 18, Bower further discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor executes the instructions to reduce the heat output of the server by capping the heat output of the server (Bower (Bower [0011-44] “control the water flow based on a temperature of the water in the cooling system 204 and/or an operational condition of the server 100 - in response to determining 422 that the temperature of each monitored component is less than the respective constant values - determining whether a processor is in a mode with turbo on, or in a state with a high current or planned work load - turbo mode initiated on the fly when increased processing performance needed” [0002-06] “determining a temperature of a fluid coolant in a cooling system of a computing device - use a temperature sensor to determine a temperature of water exiting a cooling system of the server - control a valve for increasing or decreasing a flow of water through its cooling system based on the temperature of the water or an operational condition of the server” [abstract] see Fig. 1-4, flow controller, plurality of modes with turbo on, in state, high current, planned work load obviously includes reduce the heat output of the server by capping the heat output of the server).
As to claims 6, 13 and 19, Bower further discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sensor data includes at least one of a temperature of the first volume of the coolant, a fill-level of the first volume of coolant, or a contamination of the coolant (Bower [0011-44] “determining 300 a temperature of a coolant fluid in a cooling system of a computing device - include a temperature sensor 216 suitably attached to the coolant line 202 or output fluid line 112 downstream - flow controller 206 communicatively connected to the temperature sensor 216 for receiving signals - with temperature sensors, to provide temperature data - processor 210 provide one or both of a current work load mode and a planned work load mode to the flow controller 206 - work load high, or idle or sleep state” [0002-06] “determining a temperature of a fluid coolant in a cooling system of a computing device - use a temperature sensor to determine a temperature of water exiting a cooling system of the server - temperature of a processor, memory, or input/output (I/O) component of the server determined - controlling a flow of the fluid coolant through the cooling system based on the temperature of the fluid coolant and/or the operational condition - control a valve for increasing or decreasing a flow of water through its cooling system based on the temperature of the water or an operational condition of the server” [abstract] see Fig. 1-4, plurality of sensors, receiving signals, control valve for coolant based on temperature and operational condition of server, plurality of modes current work load mode, planned work load mode, work load high, idle, sleep state obviously provides sensor data includes plurality of temperature of the first volume of the coolant, a fill-level of the first volume of coolant, or a contamination of the coolant).
As to claims 7, 14 and 20, Bower further discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor executes the instructions to drain the first volume of the coolant by sending an instruction to open a valve associated with the server, the valve coupling the server to a pipe, the pipe extending between the valve and the coolant storage (Bower [0011-44] “determining 300 a temperature of a coolant fluid in a cooling system of a computing device - include a temperature sensor 216 suitably attached to the coolant line 202 or output fluid line 112 downstream - flow controller 206 communicatively connected to the temperature sensor 216 for receiving signals - with temperature sensors, to provide temperature data - processor 210 provide one or both of a current work load mode and a planned work load mode to the flow controller 206 - work load high, or idle or sleep state” [0002-06] “determining a temperature of a fluid coolant in a cooling system of a computing device - use a temperature sensor to determine a temperature of water exiting a cooling system of the server - temperature of a processor, memory, or input/output (I/O) component of the server determined - controlling a flow of the fluid coolant through the cooling system based on the temperature of the fluid coolant and/or the operational condition - control a valve for increasing or decreasing a flow of water through its cooling system based on the temperature of the water or an operational condition of the server” [abstract] see Fig. 1-4, flow controller, plurality of sensors, receiving signals, valves, control valve for coolant flow based on temperature and operational condition of server, plurality of modes current work load mode, planned work load mode, work load high, idle, sleep state obviously provides drain the first volume of the coolant by sending an instruction to open a valve associated with the server, the valve coupling the server to a pipe, the pipe extending between the valve and the coolant storage).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2141.02 VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, i.e., as a whole and 2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art made of record:
Shaw, et al. USPGPub No. 2022/0201902 A1 discloses a method for controlling cooling of electronic components in computing facilities of a coolant flowing across multiple servers between inlet and outlet manifolds and a supply temperature of the coolant at the inlet manifold to automatically adjust operations of the pump to maintain the supply temperature at temperature setpoint.
Karrat, et al. USPGPub No. 2018/0352683 A1 discloses a cooling system for cooling data center controlled by piping for coolant flows, air cooling unit in thermal contact with the coolant to cool coolant to a temperature using variable flow control valves and controllers to maintenance temperature.
Heyderi, et al. USPGPub No. 2023/0284423 A1 discloses a cooling system for operating cooling systems utilized in datacenter containing plurality of racks or computing servers.
Shahi, et al. USPGPub No. 2024/0215205 A1 discloses a system includes plurality of cooling loops to cool plurality of components within plurality of servers having plurality of power density to flow coolant to plurality of cold plates to cool high-power server components by immersion cooling.
Chainer, et al. USPGPub No. 2016/0262288 A1 discloses a device for controlling cooling volume and coolant flow controls to adjust coolant flow using fluid communication with coolant in reservoir and coolant sensor to determine a coolant phase condition and adjust coolant flow control in response to the determined coolant phase condition.
Turner, et al. USPGPub No. 2023/0240053 A1 discloses a liquid-based heat-transfer systems pertains components for cooling electronics.
Mohajer, et al. USPGPub No. 2024/0049434 A1 discloses a method for liquid cooling high-density network pluggable modules for use in networking, storage, computing, and the like elements.
Best, USPGPub No. 2015/0334880 A1 discloses a method for packaging computing and associated components for space efficiency and cooling while retaining compatibility with hard drives operation when submersed in a liquid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Md Azad whose telephone @(571)272-0553 or email: md.azad@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on (571)272-4105. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Md Azad/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119