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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “wherein the computing system comprises a chassis housing a plurality of electronic components and the cooling system” and should recite - - wherein the computing system comprises a chassis housing, a plurality of electronic components, and the cooling system - - .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-18 and 21 are objected to as being dependent from an objected claim.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 11-12, 15-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bash et al. (US 2002/0124585) in view of VanderZee (US 20060162358).
Per claim 1, Bash teaches a cooling system for a computing system (“computer system”, para. 0021), wherein the computing system comprises a chassis housing (there is inherently a chassis housing that is associated with the computer to house/protect/secure/stabilize the electronics in the computer), a plurality of electronic components (“processors (not shown)” para. 0021) and the cooling system (10), the cooling system comprising:
a two-phase coolant having a saturation temperature (“refrigerants”, para. 0024),
a closed loop for the two-phase coolant, the closed loop comprising:
a valve (52, 54, 56, 58) fluidly connected between an outlet of a heat exchanger (36) and an inlet of a plurality of evaporator structures (12, 14, 16, 18) configured to be thermally coupled to the plurality of electronic components (“processors”, para. 0021); and
a compressor (30) fluidly connected between an outlet of the plurality of evaporator structures and an inlet of the heat exchanger (see figure 1), and
a processor (60), wherein the processor is configured to:
monitor one or more system temperatures of the computing system (via sensors 66, 82, 84, 86, 88); and
adjust an opening of the valve and/or an operating speed of the compressor to achieve a required mass flow rate (“The sensor 66 is connected to the PID 60 via an input line 62. The PID 60 is also connected to the variable speed compressor 30 via an output line 64. The PID 60 is configured to control the speed of the compressor and thus the level of compression the variable speed compressor 30 applies on the refrigerant based upon the measured T.sub.sat to thereby control the mass flow rate of the refrigerant throughout the refrigeration system 10”, para 0030, “If the T.sub.sat is equal to or below the T.sub.sat,set, the speed of the variable speed compressor 30 is reduced by a controlled amount at step 112. By reducing the speed of the variable speed compressor 30, the mass flow rate of the refrigerant entering into the evaporators 12-18 will be decreased and the T.sub.sat will be increased”, para. 0034) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to determine a required mass flow rate of the two-phase coolant to achieve a target saturation temperature based on the monitor one or more system temperatures and thermodynamic information for the two-phase coolant, and adjust an opening of the valve and/or an operating speed of the compressor to achieve the required mass flow rate.
However, VanderZee teaches a cooling control system wherein a processor (10) is configured to determine a required mass flow rate of a two-phase coolant to achieve a target saturation temperature based on a monitored system temperature (38) and thermodynamic information (60) (“controller 10 determines the desired saturation temperature (for ultimately determining the target mass flow rate) by asymmetrically filtering (i.e., asymmetrically dampening) a temperature-related variable”, para. 0039) (to clarify, suction pressure is considered “thermodynamic information”) and
adjust an opening of a valve (12) to achieve the required mass flow rate (104) for preventing reductions in superheat (para. 0013). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a processor configured to determine a required mass flow rate of a two-phase coolant to achieve a target saturation temperature based on a monitored system temperature and thermodynamic information and adjust an opening of a valve to achieve the required mass flow rate, as taught by VanderZee in the invention of Bash, as modified, in order to advantageously prevent reduction in superheat (para. 0013).
Assuming arguendo, that the computer of Bash, as modified, does not have a chassis housing, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known to have a computer include a housing to protect the electronic components from damage. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a chassis housing in order to advantageously protect the electronics from damage.
Per claim 6, Bash, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Bash, as modified, teaches temperature sensors (82, 84, 86, 88) providing the system temperatures, wherein the one or more temperature sensors (82, 84, 86, 88) are located on the outlets of the plurality of cold plates (see figure 1).
Per claim 8, Bash, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Bash, as modified, teaches wherein the processor (60) monitors a plurality of system pressures (“sensors 82-88 (e.g., thermocouples, thermistors, pressure sensing devices, etc.)”, para. 0032) and adjusts the compressor to alter the saturation temperature based on the plurality of system pressures (see figure 2).
Per claim 11, Bash, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Bash, as modified, teaches wherein the processor adjusts the compressor to keep the electronic device temperature within a threshold range (para. 0033) but fails to explicitly teach adjusted the valve and/or the compressor to keep a hottest electronic device temperature within a threshold range.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known to adjust an electronics cooling system based on the hottest electronic device temperature in order to advantageously prevent overheating and system failure. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the valve and/or compressor to keep a hottest electronic device temperature within a threshold range in order to advantageously prevent overheating to the component under the most thermal stress and system failure.
In the Office Action dated 6/17/2025, the Examiner took Official Notice that adjusting an electronics cooling system based on the hottest electronic device temperature in order to advantageously prevent overheating and system failure is old and well known in the refrigeration art. Applicant has failed to traverse the(se) statement(s). As such, and in accordance with MPEP §2144.03, the statements are now considered admitted prior art. Per claim 12, Bash, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Bash, as modified, teaches wherein the plurality of evaporator structures are fluidly connected in parallel (see figure 1).
Per claim 15, Bash, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Bash, as modified, teaches wherein the evaporator structures are cold plates (“cold plates”, para. 0021).
Per claim 16, Bash, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Bash, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the computer system is a client device.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known to have computer system be a client device in order to advantageously communicate with a server. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a computer system as a client device in order to advantageously communicate with a server.
In the Office Action dated 6/172025, the Examiner took Official Notice that having a computer system be a client device is old and well known in the refrigeration art. Applicant has failed to traverse the(se) statement(s). As such, and in accordance with MPEP §2144.03, the statements are now considered admitted prior art.
Per claim 17, Bash, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Bash, as modified, teaches wherein the two-phase coolant is a low-GWP refrigerant (“R134a”, para. 0024).
Per claim 19, claim 19 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is rejected in a similar manner but fails to explicitly teach the control system comprising , instructions stored on a non-transitory, machine-readable medium, and processor circuitry to execute the machine-readable instructions.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known to have a control system comprising instructions stored on a non-transitory, machine-readable medium, and processor circuitry to execute the machine-readable instructions for automatically performing the control system on a computer. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide instructions stored on a non-transitory, machine-readable medium, and processor circuitry to execute the machine-readable instructions in order to advantageously automatically perform the control system on a computer.
In the Office Action dated 6/17/2025, the Examiner took Official Notice that control system comprising instructions stored on a non-transitory, machine-readable medium, and processor circuitry to execute the machine-readable instructions is old and well known in the refrigeration controls art. Applicant has failed to traverse the(se) statement(s). As such, and in accordance with MPEP §2144.03, the statements are now considered admitted prior art.
Per claim 20, Bash teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 20 contains similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1.
Further, If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bash et al. (US 2002/0124585) in view of VanderZee (US 20060162358) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Saunders et al. (US 2018/0306491).
Per claims 3-4, Bash, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Bash, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor determines the thermodynamic information for the two-phase coolant (claim 3), and a memory in communication with the processor, wherein the memory stores the thermodynamic information for the two- phase coolant (claim 4).
However, Saunders teaches a cooling system wherein a processor (68) determines the thermodynamic information for the two-phase coolant (“the processor 68 may be in communication with and access a refrigerant property database 72, which is configured to store a plurality of refrigerant properties for various refrigerant types”, para. 0057) (claim 3), a memory (70) in communication with the processor (68), wherein the memory stores the thermodynamic information for the two-phase coolant (“The controller 42 may also include a processor 68 that is configured to, based on instructions stored in a memory 70…Furthermore, the processor 68 may be in communication with and access a refrigerant property database 72, which is configured to store a plurality of refrigerant properties for various refrigerant types that may be used in the refrigeration system 10-1. As such, the processor 68 may be configured to determine various enthalpies that are used to determine the SPI for the low and medium temperature compressor racks 16, 20”, para. 0057) (claim 4) for operating a cooling system at a desired efficiency (para. 0111). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a processor determines the thermodynamic information for the two-phase coolant (claim 3), and a memory in communication with the processor, wherein the memory stores the thermodynamic information for the two-phase coolant, (claim 4), as taught by Saunders in the invention of Bash, as modified, in order to advantageously operate the cooling system at a desired efficiency (para. 0111).
Per claim 14, Bash, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Bash, as modified, fails to explicitly teach an external interface connected to the processor, wherein the processor adjusts the valve and/or the compressor further based on an input from the external interface.
However, Saunders teaches a cooling system including an external interface (66) connected to a processor (68), wherein the processor adjusts a compressor (16, 20) further based on an input from the external interface (para. 0054) for operating a cooling system at a desired efficiency (para. 0111). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an external interface connected to a processor, wherein the processor adjusts a compressor further based on an input from the external interface, as taught by Saunders in the invention of Bash, as modified, in order to advantageously operate the cooling system at a desired efficiency (para. 0111).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bash et al. (US 2002/0124585) in view of VanderZee (US 20060162358) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Kulkarni et al. (US 2022/0394888).
Per claim 5, Bash, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Bash, as modified, fails to explicitly teach receiving the one or more system temperatures from a motherboard.
However, Kulkarni teaches an electronics cooling system that receive system temperatures from a motherboard (“a thermal sensor 230 positioned on the motherboard 246 may measure a motherboard temperature”, para. 0041) for determining if the temperature is approaching or exceeding a threshold temperature (para. 0041). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to receive a system temperature from a motherboard, as taught by Kulkarni in the invention of Bash, as modified, in order to advantageously determined if the temperature is approaching or exceeding a threshold temperature (para. 0041), thereby inhibiting overheating of the system components and system failure.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bash et al. (US 2002/0124585) in view of VanderZee (US 20060162358) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Savage et al. (US 2022/0279660).
Per claim 7, Bash, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Bash, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more system temperatures comprise a case temperature.
However, Savage teaches an electronic cooling system wherein a system temperature comprises a case temperature (518) for protecting internal electronics within the case (para. 0010). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide system temperatures comprises a case temperature, as taught by Savage in the invention of Bash, as modified, in order to advantageously protect internal electronics within the case (para. 0010).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bash et al. (US 2002/0124585) in view of VanderZee (US 20060162358) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Zug et al. (US 2022/0057127).
Per claims 9-10, Bash, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 8. Further, Bash, as modified, teaches the plurality of pressure sensors (“pressure sensing devices”, para. 0032) providing the plurality of system pressures, the valve (52, 54, 56, 58), and the plurality of evaporator structures (12, 14, 16, 18) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the pressure sensors are located at least before an inlet of the valve and after an outlet of the valve (claim 9) and wherein the pressure sensors are further located at the inlets of the plurality of cold plates and the outlets of the plurality of evaporator structures (claim 10).
However, Zug teaches an electronics cooling system including pressure sensors (P2, P3) located before an inlet of a valve and after an outlet of a valve (218) (claim 9), wherein the pressure sensors are further located at the inlet (P3) of an evaporator structures (structure of 210) and the outlet (P4) of the evaporator structure (claim 10) for efficiently operating the electronics cooling system (para. 0056). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide pressure sensors located before an inlet of a valve and after an outlet of a valve (claim 9), and wherein the pressure sensors are further located at an inlet of an evaporator structure and an outlet of the plurality of evaporator structure (claim 10), as taught by Zug in the invention of Bash, as modified, in order to advantageously efficiently operating an electronics cooling system (para. 0056).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bash et al. (US 2002/0124585) in view of VanderZee (US 20060162358) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Beitelmal et al. (US 2002/0157821).
Per claim 13, Bash, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Bash, as modified, teaches the plurality of evaporator structures (12, 14, 16, 18) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of evaporator structure are fluidly connected in series.
However, Beitelmal teaches an electronics cooling system wherein the plurality of evaporator structure (12, 14, 16, 18) are fluidly connected in series (see figure 1) for maintaining individual electronic component temperatures (para. 0006). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the plurality of evaporator structure fluidly connected in series, as taught by Beitelmal in the invention of Bash, as modified, in order to advantageously maintain individual electronic component temperatures (para. 0006).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bash et al. (US 2002/0124585) in view of VanderZee (US 20060162358) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Su et al. (WO 2022/237172).
Per claim 18, Bash, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Bash, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to adjust an operation of at least one of the valve or the compressor according to an eco-friendly threshold, wherein the threshold is at least one of: a threshold for refrigerant leakage detected by a deviation in data from temperature and pressure sensors; a power draw threshold for the compressor; and a time threshold for the compressor running at a high RPM.
However, Su teaches a cooling system wherein a processor is configured to adjust an operation of a compressor according to an eco-friendly threshold, wherein the threshold is a power draw threshold for a compressor (“When the power is greater than the preset power protection threshold, the speed of the compressor is quickly reduced”, pg. 4, third paragraph, of translation) for avoiding a direct shutdown of the compressor (pg. 4, third paragraph of translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a processor is configured to adjust an operating of a compressor according to an eco-friendly threshold, wherein the threshold is a power draw threshold for a compressor, as taught by Su in the invention of Bash, as modified, in order to advantageously avoid a direct shutdown of the compressor (pg. 4, third paragraph, of translation).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bash et al. (US 2002/0124585) in view of VanderZee (US 20060162358) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Reeder (US 9995502).
Per claim 21, Bash, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Bash, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the thermodynamic information comprises one of an enthalpy or an entropy of the two-phase coolant.
However, Reeder teaches a cooling control system wherein thermodynamic information comprising an enthalpy of a two-phase coolant (“calculated enthalpy”, col. 6, line 54) for optimizing the cooling system (col. 1, lines 43-44). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have thermodynamic information comprise an enthalpy of a two-phase coolant, as taught by Reeder in the invention of Bash, in order to advantageously optimize the cooling system (col. 1, lines 43-44).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
