Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (2022/0272873) in view of Heydari et al. (2022/0117121).
With regard to claim 1, Lin teaches a cooling system in a server in a group of servers physically configured to share an active cooling source (Figs. 1 and 2, pars. 2, 3, 7, 15), the cooling system comprising:
a first flow adjuster (throttle) positioned in-line with a first channel in the server, the first flow adjuster being configurable to selectively alter a first flow impedance within the first channel (Figs. 2 and 3, pars. 6, 19, 20, 34, 35 – each throttle is opened to certain degree (which is an impedance) based on flow rate needed); and
a dynamic flow controller stored in memory of the server that generates control signals for altering a physical configuration of the first flow adjuster in response to temperature variations within the server, the dynamic flow controller being configured to (Fig. 3, pars. 20, 32-35):
determine that the first channel of the server is within a target temperature range (par. 32 – the control unit calculates and adjusts the flow rate based on the temperature sensors to keep the server within its target temperature range);
in response to detecting a temperature change (which will require a changed flowrate – pars. 32-33), automatically alter the physical configuration of the first flow adjuster to increase flow impedance within the first channel and resist a change in flow rate through the first channel (Fig. 2, pars. 2-3 teach that the different servers will inherently have different flowrates based on the length of the pipe between the server and the pump. That is, the uppermost server will have a slower flowrate than the lowermost server. Pars. 32-35 teach that a server whose temperature has increased will need a greater flowrate. To make this happen, the opening degree of the throttles of the servers whose temperature has not increased will be altered to be less open (resist a change in flowrate), while the opening degree of the throttles of the servers whose temperature has increased will be altered to be more open).
However, Lin does not teach a process to detect an increase in power of the active cooling source while the first channel is still within the target temperature range, the increase in power affecting an increase in an initial coolant flow rate through the first channel; and that the process taught by Lin above is in response to detecting the increase in power of the active cooling source.
Heydari teaches a system for cooling servers in a datacenter (Fig. 1, Abstract) where the power state and cooling state of the active cooling source (PCDU) is monitored, and if a power change is detected (increase in power), adjust the flow of the cooling fluid (Fig. 5, pars. 54, 57, 69, 95). Par. 78 specifically teaches that an increase in the power output is associated with an increase in cooling requirements. Pars. 55, 78 also teach that the flow increase of the coolant is to preempt the cooling requirement, which clearly implies that for at least a moment in time the server is within a target temperature range.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art the time of the invention to incorporate the PCDU taught by Heydari into the system taught by Lin above so that the process taught by Lin above is based on the power change within the PCDU. This would have been obvious because both Heydari (par. 82) and Lin (par. 32) control the cooling of servers by adjusting flowrates, and both also use some type of throttle/valves to adjust the flowrates (Lin – par. 20; Heydari - pars. 67, 82). Heydari further teaches that it would be beneficial to combine a power distribution unit with a coolant distribution unit since it would provide quicker responses and be compatible with cross controls between the units (par. 55).
With regard to claim 2, both Lin and Heydari teach wherein the first flow adjuster dynamically alters the first flow impedance in response to temperature changes within the first channel (Lin – pars. 22, 32; Heydari – par. 57).
With regard to claim 3, Lin teaches wherein the first channel directs coolant through a first bank of electronic components and to a coolant outlet (Fig. 3, element 101 and all the components therein).
With regard to claim 4, Lin teaches wherein the first flow adjuster is an actively-controlled component and the dynamic flow controller is configured to: receive one or more temperature sensor measurements; and based on the one or more temperature sensor measurements, transmit one or more control signals to selectively adjust the first flow impedance of the first flow adjuster (Figs. 2-3, pars. 32-35). Heydari also teaches this in pars. 57, 58, 82.
With regard to claim 5, Lin (pars. 32-25) and Heydari (pars. 57-58, 82) teach wherein the first flow adjuster is a thermally-actuated component.
With regard to claim 9, it is rejected based on a similar rationale as in claim 1 above.
With regard to claim 10, it is rejected based on a similar rationale as in claim 2 above.
With regard to claim 11, it is rejected based on a similar rationale as in claim 4 above.
With regard to claim 12, it is rejected based on a similar rationale as in claim 5 above.
With regard to claim 16, it is rejected based on a similar rationale as in claim 1 above.
With regard to claim 17, Line teaches wherein the one or more flow adjusters of a first server in the group are controlled to maintain the first server within a first target temperature range, and wherein the one or more flow adjusters of a second server in the group are controlled to maintain the second server within a second target temperature range different from the first target temperature range (Figs. 2 and 3, par. 7 teach of a plurality of servers, each with their respective throttle (flow adjuster) and temperature sensor. Pars. 22, 32-35 teach that a predetermined flowrate is calculated after receiving a temperature signal from each sensor in order to keep each server within their respective target temperature).
With regard to claim 18, Lin teaches wherein the control signals adjust the physical configuration of each flow adjuster of the one or more flow adjusters based on a target temperature for a channel in-line with the flow adjuster, the target temperature being different with respect to at least one of:
different channels in-line with different flow adjusters in a same server of the group; or different channels in-line with different flow adjusters in different servers of the group (Figs. 2 and 3, par. 7 teach of a plurality of servers, each with their respective throttle (flow adjuster) and temperature sensor. Pars. 22, 32-35 teach that a predetermined flowrate is calculated after receiving a temperature signal from each sensor in order to keep each server within their respective target temperature).
Although Lin and Heydari do not specifically mention the target temperature being different amongst the plurality of servers, Heydari teaches of a system that includes multiple servers throughout the datacenter (Fig. 1). A person skilled in the art would have understood that a datacenter having multiple servers would include servers that process multiple different types of processes and have their own target temperature. Heydari states this in par. 78, where each server may carry a higher or lower workload, which would initiate a coolant response for each of these scenarios. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art since each server is a standalone server that the target temperatures between the different servers could be different from one another.
With regard to claim 19, Lin teaches wherein the dynamic flow controller of each server is further configured to:
determine that a current temperature within the first channel is indicative of an overheat condition;
determine that the first flow adjuster in-line with the first channel is already adjusted to provide a minimum-available flow impedance within the first channel; and
transmit a request for an increase in power of the active cooling source to control electronics coupled to the active cooling source (Par. 35 teaches that the flowrate of the coolant fluid is adjusted through the opening degree of each throttle until it reaches a predetermined flowrate. If the opening degree of each throttle reaches the limits (e.g, the opening degree of the throttle cannot be increased or decreased anymore), the rotating speed of the pump is adjusted such that each flowrate reaches a predetermined flowrate. This clearly implies that when the opening degree of a throttle reaches its limit, an overheat condition will take place unless another action is performed. In this case, the action would be to adjust the rotating speed of the pump, which would equate to increasing the power of the active cooling source).
With regard to claim 20, Lin teaches wherein a resulting coolant flow rate through the first channel is substantially identical to the initial coolant flow rate through the first channel subsequent to automatically altering the physical configuration of the first flow adjuster (Pars. 30-35 teach how the opening degree of each throttle is adjusted based on temperature signals and flowrate. Par. 31 specifically teaches that this process will stabilize the flow rate and the flow speed of each channel. That is, the goal of Lin is to adjust each throttle so that the flow rate is uniform amongst the different servers in a vertical stack (par. 3). It does this by receiving flowrate signals. When they are less than a predetermined flowrate, it will increase the opening of the throttle. If more than a predetermined flowrate, then it will decrease the opening of the throttle (par. 7)).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin and Heydari et al., as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Scott et al. (2010/0089468).
With regard to claim 6, although Lin teaches of a throttle that moves in response to a change in temperature (Fig. 3, pars. 6, 14, 30-35), Lin does not provide details that the throttle (flow adjuster) includes a bimetallic strip configured to bend in response to a change in local temperature.
Scott teaches a cooling system that regulates flow distribution, where the system includes bimetallic elements adapted to adjust a local flow of a cooling medium in a cooling channel in response to a heat load onto the bimetallic elements (Abstract, pars. 15-16).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to include the bimetallic elements taught by Scott above into the system taught by Lin and Heydari above. This would have been obvious because each of the references describe cooling systems that adjust the flow of a coolant, and further, using bimetallic elements can be beneficial by self-adjusting the cooling of uneven heated areas dealing with high material temperatures (Scott – par. 14, 17, 21).
With regard to claim 13, it is rejected based on a similar rationale as in claim 6 above.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin and Heydari et al., as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Lai et al. (2014/0168887).
With regard to claim 7, although Lin teaches of a throttle that moves in response to a change in temperature (Fig. 3, pars. 6, 14, 30-35), Lin does not provide details that the throttle (flow adjuster) includes a baffle configured to rotate about an axis to adjust the first flow impedance.
Lai teaches a cooling system for a server rack that includes a baffle that rotates according to the temperature of the server (Figs. 1-3, Abstract, pars. 4, 11, 13).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to include a baffle configured to rotate about an axis as taught by Lai above into the system taught by Lin and Heydari above. This would have been obvious because each of the references describe cooling systems that adjust the flow of a coolant, and further, the baffle configuration described by Lai would be beneficial in reducing the waste of energy (par. 4).
With regard to claim 14, it is rejected based on a similar rationale as in claim 7 above.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, Heydari et al. and Lai et al., as applied to claims 7 and 14 above, and further in view of Chuang et al. (2024/0260228).
With regard to claim 8, although Lai teaches of a baffle that can rotate to close a cooling source (implies spiral-shaped) according to the temperature within the server (thermal actuation), Lai does not specifically teach wherein an angular orientation of the baffle is passively controlled by thermal actuation of a spiral-shaped bimetallic strip.
Chuang teaches a cooling system that includes a baffle that is constructed with multiple bimetallic strips (Fig. 24, Pars. 239, 240).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to include a baffle configured with bimetallic strips as taught by Chuang above into the system taught by Lin, Heydari and Lai above. This would have been obvious because each of the references describe cooling systems that adjust the flow of a coolant, and further, the benefit of using bimetallic strips makes it possible to fabricate baffles that automatically change in response to a change in temperature without the need for any external actuator (Chuang - par. 239).
With regard to claim 15, it is rejected based on a similar rationale as in claim 8 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T BADERMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3644. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00AM - 3:00PM, M-Th., every other Friday off.
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, John Cottingham, can be reached at 571-272-1400. 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.
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights