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 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the phrase “method for air-conditioning components” should be amended to “A method for air-conditioning components”.
In claims 2-11, the phrase “method according to claim …” should be amended to “The method according to claim …”.
In claim 12, the phrase “Use of a method according to claim 1 for cooling …” should be changed to “The method according to claim 1, wherein the method is for cooling …”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-11 comprise numbers which render the claims indefinite. It is unclear if these recited numbers refer to those shown in different drawings. It is unclear if part of or all limitations shown in the drawings should be brought into the claims. For continuing examination purpose, the numbers in the claims have been construed as being deleted.
Claim 1 recites phrase "in particular" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether and under what condition the limitation after the phrase is part of the claimed invention. A preferred embodiment may be set forth in another independent claim or in a dependent claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(b). For continuing examination purpose, claim 1 has been construed as “A method for air-conditioning components which generate losses or waste heat,
Claim 1 recites a limitation “the one hand” which lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as “[[the]] one hand”.
Claim 1 recites a limitation “the condenser side” which lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as “[[the]] a condenser side”.
Claim 1 recites a phrase "can" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For continuing examination purpose, the limitation in claim 1 has been construed as “a cascade of heat pumps which are activated individually or in groups and are connected in parallel is provided to generate cooling for the second cooling water circuit, wherein on a condenser side of the respective heat pump, a three-way valve is used to switch from cooling mode for generating cooling to heating mode for a connected heating circuit”.
Claims 2-12 depend on claim 1 and have inherited the same deficiencies. Therefore they are rejected for the same reasons recited above.
claim 4 recites a term “a heating circuit” which introduces ambiguity. It is unclear of the term refers to a new heating circuit, or refers to the “heating circuit” recited in claim 1. For continuing examination purpose, the term has been construed as “[[a]] the heating circuit”.
Claim 4 recites a limitation “the building side” which lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as “[[the]] a building side”.
The term “as uniform as possible” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “as uniform as possible” 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 continuing examination purpose, the corresponding limitation has been construed as “so that a number of operating hours is uniform .
Claim 7 recites a limitation “the event” which lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as “[[the]] an event”.
Claim 9 recites a limitation “air heat exchanger”. It is unclear if the limitation refers to the “air heat exchanger” recited in claim 1, or refers to a new one. For continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as “the air heat exchanger”.
Claims 10 and 11 recite a phrase "can" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For continuing examination purpose, the limitation in claim 1 has been construed as “is established”.
Claim 12 recites a limitation “the computers” which lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as “the cooling of [[the]] computers”.
Claim 12 recites a limitation “the computer housings” which lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as “[[the]] computer housings”.
The term “powerful” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “as uniform as possible” 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 continuing examination purpose, the corresponding limitation has been construed as “.
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, 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, 8, 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kriege (US 4457358 A, hereinafter as “Kriege”) in view of Weisemann (US 20240098933 A1, hereinafter as “Weisemann”).
Regarding claim 1, Kriege teaches:
A method for air-conditioning components which generate losses or waste heat ([Col. 1 Lines 6-10]: “The present invention is directed to systems for providing heating and cooling to the internal spaces of buildings”; and [Col. 1 Lines 35-40]: “The all-year cooling of the interior areas of the building is necessitated by the heat released by lights, people and equipment, etc. Continuous cooling is especially important in areas such as computer rooms”. All these teach to provide air conditioning to computers), wherein the components are directly coupled to a first cooling water circuit on one hand (FIG. 1: equipment/computers connected to water system 20 are coupled to cooling circuit 22/24/26/30) and indirectly connected via a second cooling water circuit to an air heat exchanger on the other hand (FIG. 1: equipment/computers connected to water system 20 are coupled via cooling circuit of chiller 6 to cooling tower 2), characterized in that
a cascade of heat pumps which are activated individually or in groups and are connected in parallel is provided to generate cooling for the second cooling water circuit (FIG. 1 and [Col. 2 Line 65 – Col. 3 Line 5]: “The refrigeration or chiller unit 6 can be of any well-known conventional design. For purposes of illustration the unit is shown comprised of a condenser 8, a cooler or evaporator 10 and a compressor 12. The system can contain a number of refrigeration units 6 in parallel or cascade arrangements depending upon the size of the units, the size of the building or the hot water system operating temperature required”), wherein on a condenser (condenser 8 in FIG.s 1-3) side of the respective heat pump, a three-way valve (three-way valve 16 in FIG.s 1-3) is used to switch from cooling mode for generating cooling (FIG. 3 and [Col. 4 Lines 38-45]: in summer time the three-way valve is switched to connect the cooling tower 2 to the condenser 8 to generate cooling) to heating mode for a connected heating circuit (FIG. 2 and [Col. 4 Lines 6-25]: in winter time the three-way valve 16 is closed to switch to a heating mode wherein the heat is recycled to hot water circuit 28).
Kriege teaches all the limitations except the entirety of the components is located in an enclosure.
However, Weisemann teaches in an analogous art:
the entirety of the components is located in an enclosure (FIG. 1 and [0052]: computing system is located in a chamber/container 102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kriege based on the teaching of Weisemann, to make the method wherein the entirety of the components is located in an enclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to enable “efficient modular construction of larger computing centers”, as Weisemann teaches in [0011].
Regarding claim 8, Kriege-Weisemann teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Kriege further teaches:
the heat pumps are connected to a recooler located on the outside of the enclosure (FIG. 1: units 6 are connected to cooling tower 2).
Regarding claim 9, Kriege-Weisemann teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Kriege further teaches:
a bypass is formed for transferring thermal energy from the second cooling water circuit with the air heat exchanger into the first cooling water circuit (FIG. 3 and [Col. 4 Lines 38-45]: in summer time the three-way valve 16 is switched to form a bypass to transfer heat from condenser into the cooling circuit 22/24/26/30).
Regarding claim 10, Kriege-Weisemann teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Kriege further teaches:
a direct connection of the first or second cooling water circuit to the recooler for free-cooling operation is established via a three-way valve (“free-cooling operation” is recited at high level of generality without details. It is construed as an operation using “free” cold ambient air. As shown FIG. 3: the three-way valve 16 is switched to make a direct connection of the second cooling water circuit (via chiller 6) to the cooling tower 2).
Regarding claim 12, Kriege-Weisemann teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Weisemann further teaches:
cooling and air-conditioning a container-based data center and connected premises to be heated for administration and operating personnel, wherein the cooling of computers takes place via cold water-fed heat exchangers on or in computer housings for cooling heated air as well as direct hot water cooling of computer components (FIG. 1 and [0047, 0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kriege based on the teaching of Weisemann, to make the method wherein the method is for cooling and air-conditioning a container-based data center and connected premises to be heated for administration and operating personnel, wherein the cooling of computers takes place via cold water-fed heat exchangers on or in computer housings for cooling heated air as well as direct hot water cooling of computer components. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to help build “improved infrastructure for dissipating thermal energy (also referred to as cooling infrastructure) out of the computing center”, as Weisemann teaches in [0008].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kriege in view of Weisemann, and in further view of Christiansen (US 6419454 B1, hereinafter as “Christiansen”).
Regarding claim 5, Kriege-Weisemann teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but do not teach the heat pumps are operated alternately or in rotation, so that a number of operating hours is uniform.
However, Christiansen teaches in an analogous art:
compressors are operated alternately or in rotation, so that a number of operating hours is uniform (FIG. 1 and [Abstract]: “The controller rotates the order of use of the compressors to spread the time of use and for limiting the number of times during an hour that each compressor can be turned on such that the compressors take turns running and turning on and off for even wear”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kriege-Weisemann based on the teaching of Christiansen, to make the method characterized in that the heat pumps are operated alternately or in rotation, so that a number of operating hours is uniform. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to enable “even wear”, as Christiansen teaches in [Abstract].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if amended to overcome the 112(b) rejections set forth in the Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7192. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. 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.
/CHARLES CAI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115