DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A, Claim 1-12 in the reply filed on 01/21/2026 is acknowledged. Further, Claim 13 will be Examined in the present Action. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims have been amended to be dependent on a single independent Claim 1. However, the requirement is still deemed proper (see analysis below).
Species C: Drawn to Claim 14, a passive coolant distribution unit having a prediction controller to estimate CPU (Central Processing Unit) heat load based on PDU (Power Distribution Unit), found in G06N20/00.
Species D: Drawn to Claim 15, a passive coolant distribution unit having a pump control system that optimizes pump speed based on predicted coolant mass flow rate, found in F04B 39/06.
Species E: Drawn to Claim 16, a passive coolant distribution unit having a PDU (Power Distribution Unit) to calculate rack-level heat capture efficiency, G06F1/206.
Claim 1 links the inventions of Species C-Species E. The restriction requirement of the linked inventions is subject to the non-allowance of the linking claim 1. Upon the indication of allowability of the linking claim(s), the restriction requirement as to the linked inventions shall be withdrawn and any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable linking claim(s) will be rejoined and fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104 Claims that require all the limitations of an allowable linking claim will be entered as a matter of right if the amendment is presented prior to final rejection or allowance, whichever is earlier. Amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116; amendments submitted after allowance are governed by 37 CFR 1.312.
Applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional
application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, the allowable linking claim,
such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Where a restriction requirement is
withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. In re Ziegler, 443
F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971 ). See also MPEP § 804.01.
The inventions of Species C-Species E are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one
subcombination is separately usable. For example, Species C is drawn to a prediction controller for heat load that can be used in a vehicle or data center wherein Species D is drawn to pump speed optimization that can be used in a server or electronic rack. Conversely, Species E may be employed with a train inverter or other heat generating electrical component, where estimating heat capture efficiency is beneficial. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a
continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a
claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to
provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of
the instant application.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “chassis for housing the pCDU system” of Claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means”, “said” and “comprising” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Infrared” in ll. 3 should be rewritten to be -- infrared --, and will be interpreted accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Flow stabilization methods” in ll. 3 should be rewritten to be -- flow stabilization methods --, and will be interpreted accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “a passive coolant distribution unit” appears to contradict the subsequent limitation “a supplementary positive displacement pump downstream to the fluid inventory storage unit”. The supplementary displacement pump is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned how the pump is included in a passive coolant distribution unit. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “a passive coolant distribution unit” will be interpreted as – an active coolant distribution unit --.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation “a chassis for housing the pCDU system” is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned how the system is contained within a chassis or rather how the heat exchanger, coolant distribution manifold and fluid inventory management system are situated within a chassis. The pCDU system is claimed to comprise a manifold or coolant distribution unit connecting to a plurality of electronic components (shown in figure 9). For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “a chassis for housing the pCDU system” will be interpreted as – a chassis for housing at least a portion of the pCDU system --.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitation “a passive coolant distribution unit” appears to contradict the limitation “a pump unit for providing coolant to a thermosyphon loop in the system” of Claim 4. The pump is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned how the pump is included in a passive coolant distribution unit. Further it is unclear if the pump of Claim 4 is in addition to the pump in Claim 1. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “a pump unit for providing coolant to a thermosyphon loop in the system” will be interpreted as – a separate and distinct pump from the pump put forth in Claim 1--.
The term “sudden drop” in claims 10 and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sudden” 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. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “sudden drop” will be interpreted as – drop--.
The term “major leak” in claims 10 and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “major” 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. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “major leak” will be interpreted as – leak--.
The term “minor leak” in claims 10 and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minor” 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. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “minor leak” will be interpreted as – leak--.
Regarding Claim 11, the limitation “(mostly due to diffusion of coolant molecules through polymer seals)” is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned if the limitations within the parentheses are required by the Claim. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “(mostly due to diffusion of coolant molecules through polymer seals)” will be given limited patentable weight as no structure is directly associated with reasons for leaks occurring--.
The term “small leaks” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small” 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. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “small leaks” will be interpreted as – leaks--.
Regarding Claim 17, the limitation “a start-up detection and heater block starter feature” is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned what is being detected and what corresponding feature is being claimed. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “a start-up detection and heater block starter feature” will be interpreted as – a detection carried out at any time after start-up and a heater block starter capable of having a feature --.
Regarding Claim 18, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to "[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data" was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited "an input means" and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear "whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means."); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph).
The term “sufficient” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficient” 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. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “sufficient heat rejection” will be interpreted as – heat rejection--.
Claim 19 recites the limitation " the demand load " in ll. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 19, the limitation “load balancing in heat reuse applications, where the demand load fluctuates in time, to ensure sufficient heat rejection from the target equipment to be cooled, e.g., IT equipment, servers” is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned how the load demand and heat rejection are related and what exactly is being altered within the claim. Further clarification is required-.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 9-10 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amalfi et al. (EP3958659A1) in view of Heydari et al. (Translation of DE102021121494A1) and in further view of Ohno et al. (Translation of WO2021025128A1), hereinafter referred to as Amalfi, Heydari and Ohno, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Amalfi discloses a passive coolant distribution unit (pCDU) system, comprising:
a heat exchanger (105);
a coolant distribution manifold (107);
a fluid inventory management system (205) between the heat exchanger and the coolant distribution manifold (shown in figures 2, 4, 10-11), for allowing condensed liquid to accumulate in a fluid inventory storage unit (“The accumulator 205 can comprise any means that can be configured to store working fluid 113 in the liquid phase 117. The accumulator 205 stores the working fluid 113 in the liquid phase 117 and helps to prevent the working fluid 113 in the liquid phase 117 from entering the condenser 105 due to the larger cross sectional-area of the accumulator 205 relative to the downcomer”, ¶43);
sensors selected from at least one temperature sensor (“a plurality of temperature sensors provided at different locations within a downcomer of at least one thermosyphon loop”, ¶11) and at least one pressure sensor (“The apparatus may comprise at least one pressure sensor configured to measure pressure of working fluid within the at least one thermosyphon loop”, ¶10), the sensors providing a feedback loop for maintaining a liquid level in the fluid inventory storage unit (“The sensors may be configured to enable measurement of liquid level within an accumulator within the downcomer of the at least one thermosyphon loop” ¶6 and “a plurality of sensors within the thermosyphon loop wherein the sensors are configured to enable measurement of… liquid level in a downcomer of the at least one thermosyphon loop” ¶3). Amalfi fails to disclose a leak detection monitor for detecting a leak.
Heydari, also drawn to data center cooling systems, teaches a leak detection monitor for detecting a leak (“a fluid controller and a power controller configured to receive input from a learning subsystem that can determine that a threshold leak has occurred even though a computational component is functioning normally such that a change in power state to reduce dependency on Coolant and a change in coolant flow can be effected”, see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Amalfi with a leak detection monitor for detecting a leak, as taught by Heydari, the motivation being to reduce dependency on coolant, avoid “short circuits and equipment damage” and change coolant flow to minimize leakage.
Amalfi fails to disclose a supplementary positive displacement pump downstream to the fluid inventory storage unit.
Ohno, also drawn to a thermosiphon cooling loop, teaches a supplementary positive displacement pump (5, “the pump 5, a positive displacement pump can be adopted”) downstream to the fluid inventory storage unit (85, shown in figure 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Amalfi with a supplementary positive displacement pump downstream to the fluid inventory storage unit, as taught by Ohno, the motivation being that the pump may ensure the cooling of the electronic component and “stable cooling performance can be ensured in the cooling mode”.
Regarding Claim 3, Amalfi further discloses a second coolant distribution manifold (109); and quick connects (1003) for adding the second coolant distribution manifold (109) to the passive coolant distribution unit (pCDU) system (“Quick couplings 1003 are also provided in the downcomer 107 and the riser 109 on either side of the condenser 105 to enable the condenser 105 to be removed from the thermosyphon loop 101”, ¶143).
Regarding Claim 9, Amalfi further discloses a reserve tank (405) fluidically connected to the fluid inventory management system (205, shown in figure 4); and
a valve (403D) for allowing coolant fluid to be transported to a main accumulator in the fluid inventory management system (shown in figure 4).
Regarding Claim 10, a modified Amalfi further teaches the leak detection monitor (as taught by Heydari in the rejection of Claim 1) is for detecting sudden drop in temperature (“The PDU is equipped with one or more of the above sensors, giving it the ability to monitor and measure various physical system properties or parameters associated with the data center's liquid cooling system. The characteristics or parameters may include the temperature of key components (e.g., pipe temperature, component temperatures, fluid flow rates, humidity, relative humidity, and one or more water leak signals)” of Heydari) from temperature sensors in the system, which constitutes a major leak (“The learning subsystem to determine that the threshold coolant leak has occurred by determining that the pressure, the flow rate or the temperature of the coolant to or from the at least one computing component is outside a normal threshold of the specified range” of Heydari); and
a safety isolation valve triggered by the leak detection monitor to contain coolant from leaking out (“the wired and wireless control subassembly is a valve controller with a shut-off configuration that forms the electronic controller portion of the flow controller. The valve control may be adjusted in a fuzzy manner to achieve different and desired flow rates (including completely shutting off flow) through the valve as required by a learning subsystem based in part on the determined threshold leak” of Heydari).
Regarding Claim 17, although Amalfi further discloses a start-up detection (“The mass flow rate sensor 219 is configured to measure the flow rate of the working fluid 113 upstream of the evaporators 103” ¶60, wherein the mass flow sensor measures the flow rate of a pump during start up or shut down), Amalfi fails to disclose a heater block starter feature.
Ohno, also drawn to a thermosiphon cooling loop, teaches a heater block starter feature (8, “a heater 8 for heating the heat medium. Therefore, by heating the heat medium with the heater 8 during warm-up, the amount of heat that can be used for warm-up increases, and the warm-up performance can be improved”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Amalfi with a heater block starter feature, as taught by Ohno, the motivation being to improve warm-up performance.
Regarding Claim 18, Amalfi fails to disclose Flow stabilization methods during start-up.
Ohno, also drawn to a thermosiphon cooling loop, teaches Flow stabilization methods during start-up (8, “a heater 8 for heating the heat medium. Therefore, by heating the heat medium with the heater 8 during warm-up, the amount of heat that can be used for warm-up increases, and the warm-up performance can be improved”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Amalfi with Flow stabilization methods during start-u, as taught by Ohno, the motivation being to improve warm-up performance.
Regarding Claim 18, MPEP 2114 II clearly states “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and a claim having a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Because Claim 18 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding “Flow stabilization methods during start-up” limitations, the invention as taught by the combined teachings of Amalfi and Ohno are deemed fully capable of performing such function. Amalfi comprises an passive heat exchange system, wherein Yamamoto teaches it is old and well known to regulate a heat exchange system during an initial operating period.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amalfi et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0389236A1) in view of Heydari et al. (Translation of DE102021121494A1) in view of Ohno et al. (Translation of WO2021025128A1) as applied in Claims 1, 3, 9-10 and 17-18 above and in further view of Stellick et al. (US PG Pub. 2016/0128226A1), hereinafter referred to as Stellick.
Regarding Claim 2, although Amalfi discloses a computer server rack (1001) having a plurality of chassis (703, see figure 8) and a plurality of evaporators of the coolant distribution system contained within said plurality of chassis being mounted in said computer server rack (1001), Amalfi fails to disclose the chassis having detachable brackets for installing the chassis adjacent to a computer server rack.
Stellick, also drawn to a server rack for housing electronic components, teaches a chassis (100) for housing components (shown in figure 1B), the chassis having detachable brackets (106) for installing the chassis adjacent to a computer server rack (shown in figures 1 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the chassis of Amalfi with detachable brackets for installing the chassis adjacent to a computer server rack, as taught by Stellick, the motivation being that brackets are easily assembled and allow an end user a degree of flexibility in positioning the various chassis within the rack or allow the chassis to be equipped with different brackets for assembly in a variety of cabinets.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amalfi et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0389236A1) in view of Heydari et al. (Translation of DE102021121494A1) in view of Ohno et al. (Translation of WO2021025128A1) as applied in Claims 1, 3, 9-10 and 17-18 above and in further view of Yamamoto et al. (Translation of JP2004134742A), hereinafter referred to as Yamamoto.
Regarding Claim 4, although Amalfi discloses a thermosyphon loop, Amalfi fails to disclose a pump unit for providing coolant to a thermosyphon loop in the system.
Yamamoto, also drawn to electronics cooling, teaches a pump unit (303) for providing coolant to a heat pipe loop (shown in figure 17) in the system (“The flow passage is a closed loop that is closed in a circulating manner”). It is note that Amalfi discloses a thermosiphon loop, wherein Yamamoto teaches it is old and well-known to implement a pump within a passive cooling loop such as a heat pipe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the thermosyphon loop of Amalfi with a pump unit for providing coolant to the system, as taught by Yamamoto, the motivation being to maintain “a maximum temperature within a range where the temperature of the heat-generating component does not exceed an upper limit”, wherein excessive temperatures cause damage or failure of heat generating components.
Regarding Claim 5, a modified Amalfi further teaches the pump unit (303, as previously taught by Yamamoto in the rejection of Claim 4) is installed fluidically in parallel to a main liquid coolant flow path in the system (shown in figure 17).
Regarding Claim 6, although Amalfi discloses a thermosyphon loop, Amalfi fails to disclose a backflow preventer to stop pumped liquid from returning to the fluid inventory storage unit.
Yamamoto, also drawn to electronics cooling, teaches a backflow preventer (304) to stop pumped liquid from returning (“A non-return valve 304 for preventing the liquid from flowing backward is provided in front of the heating element 303 of the branch 302” ¶55). It is note that Amalfi discloses a thermosiphon loop having the fluid inventory storage unit, wherein a modified Amalfi having the backflow preventer of Yamamoto further teaches the unidirectional flow of the working fluid and the prevention of working fluid flowing in reverse to the fluid inventory storage unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Amalfi with a backflow preventer to stop pumped liquid from returning to the fluid inventory storage unit, as taught by Yamamoto, the motivation being that reversed flow within the cooling loop diminishes the cooling capacity of the system leading to degradation or failure of heat generating components.
Regarding Claim 7, a modified Amalfi further teaches the fluid inventory management system includes: a level sensor that ensures coolant level is maintained at a selected level (“The plurality of temperature sensors 223 also enables the determination of the height of the liquid level in the downcomer 107 of the thermosyphon loop 101 to be determined. The measurement of the liquid level indicates at what point within the downcomer 107 the working fluid 113 is in the vapour phase” (¶67) and “The heat transfer could be controlled by controlling the function of one or more of the electronic devices 203, by controlling the fluid flow through the thermosyphon loop 101, by controlling the liquid level in the accumulator 205 or by any other suitable means” (¶70), shown in at least figure 2) to prevent fluid cavitation in the pump unit (see functional limitation analysis below).
Regarding Claim 7, MPEP 2114 II clearly states “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and a claim having a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Because Claim 7 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding “to prevent fluid cavitation in the pump unit” limitations, the invention as taught by the combined teachings of Amalfi and Yamamoto are deemed fully capable of performing such function. Amalfi comprises an accumulator, wherein the liquid level in the accumulator is monitored, wherein Yamamoto teaches it is old and well known to have a pump.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amalfi et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0389236A1) in view of Heydari et al. (Translation of DE102021121494A1) in view of Ohno et al. (Translation of WO2021025128A1) as applied in Claims 1, 3, 9-10 and 17-18 above and in further view of Hewkin (US PG Pub. 2007/0235458A1), hereinafter referred to as Hewkin.
Regarding Claim 8, Amalfi fails to disclose the fluid inventory management system includes: a modular and stackable liquid accumulator.
Hewkin, also drawn to a cooling system having a liquid reservoir, teaches a modular and stackable liquid accumulator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the accumulator of the fluid inventory management system of Amalfi with a modular and stackable liquid accumulator, as taught by Hewkin, the motivation being that “Due to the large number of possible combinations of design criteria facing automobile manufacturers, it would be advantageous to provide a liquid reservoir for a liquid-containing system having a modular construction whereby automakers could select from a variety of stock parts and assemble with relative ease a liquid reservoir having the desired functionality, geometry, etc” (¶5).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amalfi et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0389236A1) in view of Heydari et al. (Translation of DE102021121494A1) in view of Ohno et al. (Translation of WO2021025128A1) as applied in Claims 1, 3, 9-10 and 17-18 above and in further view of Scancarello (US PG Pub. 2017/0074747A1), hereinafter referred to as Scancarello.
Regarding Claim 11, a modified Amalfi further teaches the leak detection monitor (as taught by Heydari in the rejection of Claim 1) is for detecting data from sensors for detecting coolant leak from the system (see rejection of Claim 1 above), the sensors are useful to detect minor leaks which include small leaks (mostly due to diffusion of coolant molecules through polymer seals) that does not immediately affect overall system performance (see intended use analysis below). Amalfi fails to disclose chemical sensors for detecting coolant leak from the system, the chemical sensors, selected from at least one of metal oxide, Infrared, and MEMS-based sensors.
Scancarello, also drawn to a cooling system, teaches chemical sensors for detecting coolant leak from the system, the chemical sensors, selected from at least one of metal oxide (“The method also includes detecting a leak of the refrigerant and reducing tag component with a metal oxide semiconductor (MOS) sensor associated with the refrigerant circuit” (¶10)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Amalfi with chemical sensors for detecting coolant leak from the system, the chemical sensors, selected from at least one of metal oxide, as taught by Scancarello, the motivation being that “The MOS sensor provides a higher level of sensitivity and greatly improved selectivity to reducing tag component species relative to sensitivity of sensors commonly used today to detect flammable refrigerant leaks. In accordance with certain aspects of the present teachings, MOS sensors are less dependent on the specific flammable refrigerant being detected than certain other sensing technologies and have a relatively low cost compared to current detectors commonly used in the art” (¶23).
Regarding limitations “the sensors are useful to detect minor leaks which include small leaks (mostly due to diffusion of coolant molecules through polymer seals) that does not immediately affect overall system performance” recited in Claim 11, which are directed to types of leaks capable of being detected, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amalfi et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0389236A1) in view of Heydari et al. (Translation of DE102021121494A1) in view of Ohno et al. (Translation of WO2021025128A1) as applied in Claims 1, 3, 9-10 and 17-18 above and in further view of Bean et al. (US PG Pub. 2010/0300129A1), hereinafter referred to as Bean.
Regarding Claim 12, although a modified Amalfi further teaches the leak detection monitor (as taught by Heydari in the rejection of Claim 1) includes:
a control module for actuating an isolation valve when a major leak (“The valve control may be adjusted in a fuzzy manner to achieve different and desired flow rates (including completely shutting off flow) through the valve as required by a learning subsystem based in part on the determined threshold leak”), which includes a sudden drop in temperature (“The PDU is equipped with one or more of the above sensors, giving it the ability to monitor and measure various physical system properties or parameters associated with the data center's liquid cooling system. The characteristics or parameters may include the temperature of key components (e.g., pipe temperature, component temperatures, fluid flow rates, humidity, relative humidity, and one or more water leak signals)” of Heydari) is detected in the system to contain coolant from leaking out (see previous annotations), Amalfi fails to disclose an emergency alert generated from the control module to inform system operators of the major leak detection to provide a shutdown of the system.
Bean, also drawn to a cooling system for server racks, teaches an emergency alert generated from the control module to inform system operators of the major leak detection to provide a shutdown of the system (“The controller 60 may also be configured to shut of the operation of the cooling system in general when a catastrophic event occurs. For example, in the situation in which a leak of refrigerant is detected in the manner described below, an alarm 68 associated with the refrigerant distribution unit 38, may be triggered prior to shutting down the cooling system or certain component of the cooling system. The alarm 68 may be a visual alarm, an audible alarm, or both a visual/audible alarm” ¶46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Amalfi with an emergency alert generated from the control module to inform system operators of the major leak detection to provide a shutdown of the system, as taught by Bean, the motivation being to warn operators of a catastrophic even in order to avoid degradation or failure of the heat generating components.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amalfi et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0389236A1) in view of Heydari et al. (Translation of DE102021121494A1) in view of Ohno et al. (Translation of WO2021025128A1) as applied in Claims 1, 3, 9-10 and 17-18 above and in further view of Tilton et al. (US PG Pub. 2004/0089008A1), hereinafter referred to as Tilton.
Regarding Claim 13, Amalfi fails to disclose an air ingress management control for separating air ingresses into the system, and accumulating the separated air ingresses into a second fluid inventory storage unit.
Tilton, also drawn to a cooling system for electronic components, teaches an air ingress management control (29, 42) for separating air ingresses (“The air chamber 29 is of a sufficient volume for receiving and storing the collected air and non-condensable gases from the reservoir 25” (¶58)) into the system (shown in figure 2), and accumulating the separated air ingresses into a second fluid inventory storage unit (29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Amalfi with an air ingress management control for separating air ingresses into the system, and accumulating the separated air ingresses into a second fluid inventory storage unit, as taught by Tilton, the motivation being “The air chamber 29 prevents the air and other gases from entering the coolant supply flow during operation of the present invention” (¶57) or reducing “air/gas buildup within the heat exchanger thereby preventing excessive increased system pressure, preventing increased coolant temperature, and maximizing heat exchanger performance” (¶30).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amalfi et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0389236A1) in view of Heydari et al. (Translation of DE102021121494A1) in view of Ohno et al. (Translation of WO2021025128A1) as applied in Claims 1, 3, 9-10 and 17-18 above and in further view of Brunschwiler et al. (WO2009107015A2), hereinafter referred to as Brunschwiler.
Regarding Claim 19, Amalfi fails to disclose the fluid inventory management system includes: load balancing in heat reuse applications, where the demand load fluctuates in time, to ensure sufficient heat rejection from the target equipment to be cooled, e.g., IT equipment, servers.
Brunschwiler, also drawn to a cooling system for a data center, teaches load balancing (“Therefore, as load conditions change and different regions of the processor chip 34 become active, the flow rates of coolant may be correspondingly changed” ¶38) in heat reuse applications (“utilizing the thermal energy as a heat source for residences, commercial facilities or as process heat. In the exemplary embodiment, the data center offsets 360 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year through the repurposing of the heat generated by the computer systems 22. The selling of thermal energy, and the offsetting of carbon emissions may reduce the cost of operating the data center, or the total cost of ownership by up to 50%” ¶59), where the demand load fluctuates in time, to ensure sufficient heat rejection from the target equipment to be cooled, e.g., IT equipment, servers (the utilization of the data center heat will fluctuate based upon the operational requirements, see also ¶49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Amalfi with the fluid inventory management system includes: load balancing in heat reuse applications, where the demand load fluctuates in time, to ensure sufficient heat rejection from the target equipment to be cooled, e.g., IT equipment, servers, as taught by Brunschwiler, the motivation being that such heat capture “may reduce the cost of operating the data center, or the total cost of ownership by up to 50%” (¶59).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amalfi et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0389236A1) in view of Heydari et al. (Translation of DE102021121494A1) in view of Ohno et al. (Translation of WO2021025128A1) as applied in Claims 1, 3, 9-10 and 17-18 above and in further view of Cudack et al. (US PG Pub. 2016/0273996A1), hereinafter referred to as Cudack.
Regarding Claim 20, a modified Amalfi further teaches the leak detection monitor (as previously taught by Heydari in the rejection of Claim 1) includes: at least one liquid detection sensor (“a plurality of wired or wireless sensors, such as temperature, humidity, liquid flow, leak sensors”), wherein a single sensor generates an output signal proportional to severity of the leak or multiple sensors collectively signals to be interpreted to estimate the severity of the leak (“Over time, a lack of pressure can be converted to a fluid leak rate over the period of time this issue is monitored”). Amalfi fails to disclose the signal or the signals are used to alert anomalous events and provide estimated required maximum response time for addressing the leak.
Cudack, also drawn to data center cooling systems, teaches the signal or the signals are used to alert anomalous events and provide estimated required maximum response time for addressing the leak (“if the water evaporation rate is not greater than the water leakage rate, then step 85 issues a call for service to fix the leak and determines when service is estimated to occur (i.e., when is the next scheduled service available) and step 86 determines a maximum time to service required (when the containment reservoir will reach a critical level)” ¶50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Amalfi with the signal or the signals are used to alert anomalous events and provide estimated required maximum response time for addressing the leak, as taught by Cudack, the motivation being to allow for flexibility in making repairs to the system or rather to allow for operation of the system during a critical time period if the leak will not affect operations until a later or less critical time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights