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 .
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 10/5/2023 are as follows:
Claims 1-20 are pending and are being examined.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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:
“thermal management components” in claims 1 and 10. The generic placeholder “component” is modified by the functional language “thermal management” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function. Paragraph 45 of the applicants’ specification outlines the thermal management components as “the thermal management components 304 may include, among other components, a heat exchanger 700, a power supply 702, a fill pump 704, and/or one or more internal fluid conduit(s) 706”. Thus, the “thermal management components” will be interpreted as any one of the recited components.
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.
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 10 last lines recite “to maximize one or more dimensions”. The term “maximize” in claims 1 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “maximize” 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. It is unclear as to what size is required in order to be considered to maximize the space. Additionally, it is unclear as to what standard the maximized dimension is being compared to. Since no baseline dimension is established, there is no way to establish that the new dimension has maximized the space. Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the claim is indefinite.
Claims 9 and 18 last line recite “includes an increased capacity”. It is unclear as to what standard the increased capacity is being compared to. Since no baseline capacity is established, there is no way to establish that the new capacity has been increased. Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the claim is indefinite.
The remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steinke (US2017/0049009A1).
Re Claim 1. Steinke teaches a cooling distribution unit (CDU) (40) (Figures 2-3) comprising:
a housing (housing of 40) defining: a fluid inlet (63); and a fluid outlet (61) (Figures 2-3, 5; Paragraphs 23-26, 29-32);
one or more thermal management components (as interpreted under 112(f) above; heat exchanger 50, fans 42, pumps 48, power supply 47, conduits 44 & 46) supported by the housing, wherein, in operation, the one or more thermal management components are configured to dissipate heat of a fluid received by the CDU via the fluid inlet (Figures 2, 3, 5; Paragraphs 29-32); and
one or more direct mechanical connections (63, 64 are quick connects for blind mating) coupled with the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet, wherein the one or more direct mechanical connections are configured to directly interface with a fluid distribution system (manifolds 60, 62) to provide fluid communication between the CDU and the fluid distribution system so as to maximize one or more dimensions of the housing (Figures 2, 3, 5; Paragraphs 25-27, 29).
Re Claim 10. Steinke teaches an in-rack thermal management system (Figures 1-5) comprising:
a cooling distribution unit (CDU) (40) (Figures 2-3) comprising:
a housing (housing of 40) defining: a fluid inlet (63); and a fluid outlet (61) (Figures 2-3, 5; Paragraphs 23-26, 29-32);
one or more thermal management components (as interpreted under 112(f) above; heat exchanger 50, fans 42, pumps 48, power supply 47, conduits 44 & 46) supported by the housing (Figures 2, 3, 5; Paragraphs 29-32); and
one or more direct mechanical connections (63, 64 are quick connects for blind mating) coupled with the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet (Figures 2, 3, 5; Paragraphs 25-27, 29); and
a fluid distribution system (manifolds 60, 62) comprising: a primary fluid channel (62) directly coupled with the direct mechanical connection of the fluid inlet; and a secondary fluid channel (60) directly coupled with the direct mechanical connection of the fluid outlet, wherein, in operation, the one or more thermal management components are configured dissipate heat of a fluid received by the CDU via the fluid inlet, and wherein the direct mechanical connections are configured to directly interface with the fluid distribution system to provide fluid communication between the CDU and the fluid distribution system so as to maximize one or more dimensions of the housing (Figures 2, 3, 5; Paragraphs 25-32, 35).
Re Claim 2 & 11. Steinke teaches the direct mechanical connections are configured to directly interface with the fluid distribution system in the absence of external fluid conduits (Figures 2, 3, 5; Paragraphs 25-32).
Re Claim 3 & 12. Steinke teaches the direct mechanical connections are configured to be removably attached with the fluid distribution system without external fluid conduits extending therebetween (Figures 2, 3, 5; Paragraphs 25-32).
Re Claim 4 & 13. Steinke teaches the one or more direct mechanical connections comprise one or more blind mate connectors (Figures 2, 3, 5; Paragraphs 25-32; Paragraph 25 specifically recites the connections are “blind mating”).
Re Claim 5 & 14. Steinke teaches wherein a first temperature associated with the fluid received by the fluid inlet is greater than a second temperature associated with the fluid exiting the housing via the fluid outlet (Figures 2, 3, 5; Paragraphs 25-32; Inlet 63 is for warm coolant that is cooled by air heat exchanger 50 and outputted at outlet 61 as cooled coolant).
Re Claim 8 & 17. Steinke teaches the one or more dimensions of the housing comprise an internal dimension such that the housing is further configured to support one or more redundant thermal management components (Figures 2, 3, 5; Paragraphs 25-32; Steinke teaches having redundant pumps 48).
Re Claim 9 & 18. Steinke teaches the one or more dimensions of the housing comprise an internal dimension such that at least one of the thermal management components supported by the housing includes an increased capacity (Figures 2, 3, 5; Paragraphs 25-32; Steinke teaches having redundant pumps 48, thereby increasing capacity).
Re Claim 19. Steinke teaches further comprising: a server housing (70) defining: a server inlet (66, 74); and a server outlet (65, 72); one or more processing components (32, 34) supported by the server housing; one or more direct mechanical connections (65, 66) coupled with the server inlet and the server outlet, wherein the one or more direct mechanical connections are configured to directly interface with the fluid distribution system to provide fluid communication between the server housing and the fluid distribution system (Figures 2, 4, 5; Paragraphs 23-26, 33-35).
Re Claim 20. Steinke teaches the direct mechanical connections of the server housing are configured to directly interface with the fluid distribution system in the absence of external fluid conduits (Figures 2, 4, 5; Paragraphs 23-26, 33-35).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6, 7, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinke (US2017/0049009A1) in view of Eckberg (US2016/0066480A1).
Re Claim 6 & 15. Steinke teaches the housing further defines one or more bays (11, 21, 23) by which the housing may be positioned within a datacenter rack (10 is the rack) (Figures 2, 3, 5; Paragraphs 25-32). Steinke fails to specifically teach rails in the rack.
However, Eckberg teaches the housing further defines one or more support rails (21, 23) by which the housing may be positioned within a datacenter rack (20) (Figure 1; Paragraphs 27-28)
Therefore, in view of Eckberg's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add support rails to the rack of Steinke in order to better align the modules with the blind mating quick connections at the manifolds. Further, the use of rails in server racks is well-known and established in the art and would only require routine skill in the art to implement.
Re Claim 7 & 16. Steinke as modified by Eckberg teach the housing, via movement along the one or more support rails, is configured to be removably attached with the fluid distribution system (Steinke Figures 2, 3, 5; Paragraphs 25-32; Eckberg Figure 1, Paragraphs 27-28).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for other relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS C RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 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 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763