DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is in response to claims filed on 01/24/2024. Claims 1 – 14 are pending in the application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “the humidification unit” in line 5, which should recite “a humidification unit” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 recites “the fan unit” in line 5, which should recite “a fan unit” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 8 recites “the dehumidification unit” in line 5, which should recite “a dehumidification unit” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 8 recites “a humidity value detected by the first temperature and humidity sensor” in line 6, which should recite “the humidity value detected by the first temperature and humidity sensor” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites “the heat exchange unit” in lines 1-2, which should recite “a heat exchange unit” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 10 recites “a humidification unit” in line 1, which should recite “the humidification unit” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 10 recites “the air” in line 2, which should recite “
Claim 11 recites “the air flow direction” in line 2, which should recite “an air flow direction” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 13 recites “the heat exchange unit” in line 2, which should recite “a heat exchange unit” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 14 recites “the dehumidification unit” in lines 1-2, which should recite “a dehumidification unit” for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanGilder et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,992,402) in view of Varadi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,108,154).
Regarding Claim 7, VanGilder shows (Figures 1 and 2):
A data center (10) having a refrigeration space (14 and the space between 12 and 13, as illustrated in Figure 1) and an equipment room (11), wherein
the refrigeration space (14 and the space between 12 and 13, as illustrated in Figure 1) is provided with a refrigeration air apparatus (14); and
one end (the upstream, as illustrated in Figure 1) of the refrigeration space (14 and the space between 12 and 13, as illustrated in Figure 1) is interconnected to (as illustrated by the air flow arrows in Figure 1) the equipment room (11) through a return air inlet (the return air inlet for 56 in which 92 is located, as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2), and the other end (the downstream end, as illustrated in Figure 1) of the refrigeration space (14 and the space between 12 and 13, as illustrated in Figure 1) is interconnected to (as illustrated by the air flow arrows in Figure 1) the equipment room (11) through an air supply outlet (26), a fan unit (98) being positioned between (as illustrated in Figure 2) the return air inlet (the return air inlet for 56 in which 92 is located, as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2) and the air supply outlet (26).
However, VanGilder lacks showing a humidification unit being positioned between the air supply outlet and the fan unit.
In the same field of endeavor of data center cooling, Varadi teaches (Figures 1 and 2):
It is known in the data center (data center illustrated in Figure 1) art for an air cooling system (200) to comprise a humidification unit (240) between the air supply inlet (inlet at the top of 200 for return airflow, as illustrated in Figure 2) and the fan unit (250).
Further, “the space of the computer room contains server racks 130, which typically generate significant heat. However, excess heat can lead to failure of a server, so the space should have, at least, its temperature maintained within desired limits. Other physical conditions that may need to be controlled include the air pressure in the room, dust levels, and humidity levels”, Col. 6, line 65 – Col. 7, line 4.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the air cooling system 14 shown by VanGilder to include a humidification unit being positioned between the air supply outlet and the fan unit, as taught by Varadi, since it is known in the art that other physical conditions such as humidity levels may need to be controlled and maintained within desired limits to prevent server failure in the data center.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of VanGilder (Figures 1 and 2) and Varadi (Figures 1 and 2) teaches:
The humidification unit (Varadi: 240) configured to humidify air (VanGilder: air flowing through 14).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of VanGilder (Figures 1 and 2) and Varadi (Figures 1 and 2) teaches:
The humidification unit (Varadi: 240) is positioned in front of (Varadi: as illustrated in Figure 2, 240 is positioned in front of/upstream of the fan unit) the fan unit (VanGilder: 98) along an air flow direction (VanGilder: air flow direction indicated by the air flow arrows in Figure 1).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanGilder et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,992,402) and Varadi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,108,154), as recited in Claim 7 above, further in view of Levesque (U.S. Patent No. 9,320,177).
Regarding Claim 8, VanGilder shows (Figures 1 and 2):
A first temperature sensor (16) and a second temperature sensor (17), and a cooling coil heat exchanger (96).
However, VanGilder lacks showing a first temperature and humidity sensor is installed at the return air inlet, and a second temperature and humidity sensor is installed at the air supply outlet; and the data center enables the humidification unit based on a humidity value detected by the first temperature and humidity sensor, the data center enables a dehumidification unit based on the humidity value detected by the first temperature and humidity sensor, and the humidification unit and the dehumidification unit are not enabled simultaneously.
Varadi further teaches (Figures 1 and 2):
It is known in the art for a first temperature and humidity sensor (260; “sensors such as temperature, humidity, pressure”, Col. 3, lines 20-22) to be installed (as illustrated in Figure 2) at the return air inlet (inlet at the top of 200 for return airflow, as illustrated in Figure 2), and a second temperature and humidity sensor (270; “sensors such as temperature, humidity, pressure”, Col. 3, lines 20-22) to be installed (as illustrated in Figure 2) at the air supply outlet (outlet of 250); and the data center (data center illustrated in Figure 1) enables (“the values measured by the sensors may be used by the supervisory controller to adjust operation levels of actuators within the modules... the system is maintaining the environment within a prescribed range”, Col. 2, lines 22-27) the humidification unit (240) based on a humidity value (humidity value detected by 260) detected by the first temperature and humidity sensor (260).
Further, “the environmental maintenance modules for the computer room may also comprise dehumidifiers or other devices for modifying the physical conditions of the environmental space”, Col. 7, lines 25-28.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the data center taught by the combination of VanGilder and Varadi to further include a first temperature and humidity sensor is installed at the return air inlet, and a second temperature and humidity sensor is installed at the air supply outlet; and the data center enables the humidification unit based on a humidity value detected by the first temperature and humidity sensor, the data center enables the modules (such as the humidification unit) based on a humidity value detected by the first temperature and humidity sensor, as further taught by Varadi, to allow the data center to maintain the environment within a prescribed humidity range by monitoring the humidity.
It is noted Varadi teaches the humidity value from the first temperature and humidity sensor is used by the data center to control modules, such as the humidification unit. Since “the environmental maintenance modules for the computer room may also comprise dehumidifiers”, Col. 7, lines 25-28, the combination is capable of enabling a dehumidification unit based on the humidity value. If the humidity value is high, the dehumidification unit would be enabled. If the humidity value is low, the humidification unit would be enabled. The units would not be enabled simultaneously.
It is noted this combination does not teach explicitly teach a dehumidification unit.
In the same field of endeavor of data center cooling, Levesque teaches (Figure 7):
It is known for an air cooling system (10) to comprise a dehumidification unit (“heat exchanger 104 used to dehumidify and further cool the air if needed”, Col. 14, lines 60-62).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the cooling coil heat exchanger shown by VanGilder to also dehumidify, as taught by Levesque, to prevent malfunction of the servers if the environment within the data center becomes too humid.
Regarding Claim 9, VanGilder shows (Figures 1 and 2):
The fan unit (98) and a heat exchange unit (96).
However, the combination of VanGilder, Varadi, and Levesque teaches the claimed invention except a fan speed of the fan unit and/or the heat exchange unit are regulated based on a PID control method.
Varadi further teaches (Figures 1 and 2):
It is known to control the data center using a PID control method (“the PID controller as a control strategy is foremost that by causing all environmental actuators to act in unison, all environmental sensors may be kept close or well below their respective thresholds under a wide range of operational conditions without model knowledge of the environmental space”, Col. 22, lines 14-20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to regulate the fan speed of the fan unit and the heat exchange unit shown by VanGilder based on a PID control method, as further taught by Varadi, to provide the advantage that by causing all environmental actuators to act in unison, all environmental sensors may be kept close or well below their respective thresholds under a wide range of operational conditions without model knowledge of the environmental space.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanGilder et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,992,402) and Varadi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,108,154), as recited in Claim 11 above, further in view of Liu (U.S. Patent No. 9,453,656).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of VanGilder and Varadi teaches the humification unit (Varadi: 240) but lacks reciting the humidification unit is at least one of an electric humidifier, a wet film humidifier, and a steam humidifier.
In the same field of endeavor of data center cooling, Liu teaches:
It is known in the prior art for an air cooling system (CRAC unit) to include a steam humidifier (“a humidifier adds steam”, Col. 2, lines 8-16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to specify the humidification unit taught by the combination of VanGilder and Varadi is a steam humidifier, as taught by Liu, since adding steam to air is a well-known solution to increase the relative humidity of a data center.
Regarding Claim 13, VanGilder shows (Figures 1 and 2):
A filter unit (94), wherein
a heat exchange unit (96) is positioned in front of the filter unit (94) along the air flow direction (air flow direction indicated by the air flow arrows in Figure 1), and the filter unit (94) is configured to filter (as illustrated by the air flow arrows in Figure 1) the air (air flowing through 14).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanGilder et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,992,402), Varadi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,108,154), and Liu (U.S. Patent No. 9,453,656), as recited in Claim 13 above, further in view of Levesque (U.S. Patent No. 9,320,177).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of VanGilder (Figures 1 and 2), Varadi (Figures 1 and 2), and Liu teaches:
The heat exchange unit (VanGilder: 96), the humidification unit (Varadi: 240) and the filter unit (VanGilder: 94) are arranged along a rectilinear direction (VanGilder: as illustrated in Figure 2, all components of 14 are arranged in a rectilinear vertical direction).
However, the combination lacks teaching the air cooling system (VanGilder: 14) includes a dehumidification unit.
In the same field of endeavor of data center cooling, Levesque teaches (Figure 7):
It is known for an air cooling system (10) to comprise a dehumidification unit (“heat exchanger 104 used to dehumidify and further cool the air if needed”, Col. 14, lines 60-62).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the cooling coil heat exchanger shown by VanGilder to also dehumidify, as taught by Levesque, to prevent malfunction of the servers if the environment within the data center becomes too humid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 6 are allowed.
Regarding Claim 1, the prior art combination of VanGilder et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,992,402) and Levesque (U.S. Patent No. 9,320,177) teaches:
A refrigeration wall apparatus (VanGilder: 14) comprising a heat exchange unit (Van Gilder: 96), a dehumidification unit (Levesque: 104), a fan unit (VanGilder: 98), wherein, the dehumidification unit (Levesque: 104) comprises a gas-to-liquid heat exchanger (“air-to-coolant heat exchanger 104”), and wherein air (VanGilder: air illustrated by air flow arrows in Figure 1) exchanges heat through the heat exchange unit and the dehumidification unit to condense water vapor in the air.
Please see, for example, the rejection of Claim 14 above.
Levesque further teaches (Figure 7) the heat exchange unit (102, which is analogous to VanGilder’s 96) is connected to a liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger (112). “From the heat exchanger 102, the air flows through another air-to-coolant heat exchanger 104 used to dehumidify”, Col. 14, lines 59-62.
However, the combination does not teach the dehumidification unit further comprises a first liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger, and a first electric valve; the first gas-to-liquid heat exchanger is connected in series with an internal channel of the first liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger to form an internal circulation loop, the first electric valve being connected in series with the internal circulation loop; an external channel of the first liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger is connected in series with a first external cold source device to form an external circulation loop, and when the dehumidification unit is in operation, the air sequentially exchanges heat through the heat exchange unit and the first gas-to-liquid heat exchanger.
The closest prior art to teaching a dehumidification unit comprising a first gas-to-liquid heat exchanger, a first liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger, and a first electric valve is Craft, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,492,341).
Craft teaches (see Figure 17) a data center comprising a cooling module (136d) comprising a heat exchanger (160), a gas-to-liquid heat exchanger (162), and an electric valve (161).
Accordingly, either alone or in combination, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed combination of Claim 1.
Claims 2 – 6 depend from Claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References Cited.
The following prior art teaches related data centers:
Gao (U.S. Patent No. 11,920,867): a modular cooling system for a data center, as described in Col. 3, lines 37-52
Hnayno et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0390178): see Figure 2
Malouin et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0087076): see Figure 6
Dunnavant (U.S. Patent No. 9,032,742): see Figure 1
Fujimoto et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0098597): see Figure 1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA K TIGHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9476. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:00.
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, Helena Kosanovic, can be reached on 571-272-9059. 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.
/DANA K TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights