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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/12/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao (US 10912230 B1).
As to Claim 15, Gao discloses:
A method for producing a switchgear cabinet for power electronics, the cabinet (rack 100) comprising a cooling apparatus for cooling the power electronics (servers 102 within rack 100) with a main cooling circuit 107 and a secondary cooling circuit (heat exchanger coil 105), the method comprising:
installing the secondary cooling circuit including a heat exchanger (heat exchanger coil 105) as a parallel bypass to the main cooling circuit 107 (see Fig. 5C, coil 105 is in parallel with server cooling loop comprising 107; col. 6, Lines 17-21 “For this design implementation, as described in FIG. 5C, cooling liquid enters the heat exchanger coil and the rack manifold in parallel such that heat exchange cooling and server loop cooling can take place together instead of sequentially”; col. 5, Lines 25-28 “the process flows 500, 520 and 540 can be implemented for internal liquid or fluid (e.g., water) flow through rack and rack door as shown in FIGS. 1-4B”); and
arranging the heat exchanger 105 on a rear wall (110 col. 3, Lines 16-18 “rear door 110 is attached to the back end of rack 100 implementing a hybrid door design by integrating heat exchanger coil 105”) and/or between rails of the switchgear cabinet 100.
Regarding the preamble, “A method for producing a switchgear cabinet for power electronics”, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”); Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81.
In the instant case, the term “switchgear cabinet for power electronics” can be broadly interpreted because the claims do not set forth any switchgears or any limitations differentiating the claimed rack from a conventional electronics rack. Thus "switchgear cabinet for power electronics” is being interpreted as a rack that is intended to be/capable of housing switchgears/power electronics. Thus, the limitation “switchgear cabinet for power electronics” merely recite the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Accordingly, the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.
Further, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In the instant case, the prior art cabinet frame of Gao is capable of housing a switchgear and power electronics.
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, 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 1-2, 5, 7-8, 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (US 10912230 B1) in view of Ota (US 7318322 B2).
As to Claim 1, Gao discloses:
A switchgear cabinet for power electronics, the cabinet (rack 100) comprising:
a frame (structure of rack 100) for mounting power electronics assemblies and components in a primary installation space (servers 102 within rack 100);
a rear wall 110 fixed to the frame (rear door 110 fixed to rack 100);
a main cooling circuit 107 to remove heat from the primary installation space using a cooling medium (col. 3, Lines 38-41 “rack manifold 101 distributes cooling liquid to cooling plates 107 that are thermally coupled to servers 101 and exchange heat from servers 101 to the cooling liquid flowing in the cooling plates 107”);
a secondary cooling circuit (heat exchanger coil 105) to remove heat from the cooling medium (indirectly cools cooling liquid by cooling air within rack 100; col. 3, Lines 21-25 “a function provided by rear door 110 is to cool hot exhaust air from the servers 102 using the heat exchanger coil 105 that uses cooling liquid flowing in heat exchanger coil 105 provided by rack manifold 101”), the secondary cooling circuit (coil 105) comprising a parallel bypass to the main cooling circuit 107 (see Fig. 5C, coil 105 is in parallel with server cooling loop comprising 107; col. 6, Lines 17-21 “For this design implementation, as described in FIG. 5C, cooling liquid enters the heat exchanger coil and the rack manifold in parallel such that heat exchange cooling and server loop cooling can take place together instead of sequentially”; col. 5, Lines 25-28 “the process flows 500, 520 and 540 can be implemented for internal liquid or fluid (e.g., water) flow through rack and rack door as shown in FIGS. 1-4B”);
wherein the secondary cooling circuit 105 includes a heat exchanger (heat exchanger coil 105) arranged on the rear wall (110 col. 3, Lines 16-18 “rear door 110 is attached to the back end of rack 100 implementing a hybrid door design by integrating heat exchanger coil 105”) and/or between rails of the switchgear cabinet 100.
Gao does not disclose:
a set of rails fixed to a frame for mounting power electronics assemblies and components.
However, Ota discloses:
a set of rails (slide rails 61, see Fig. 10) fixed to a frame (mount angles 11 of cabinet 10) for mounting power electronics assemblies and components (server 62; col. 10, Lines 44-46 “The server module 62 with this fluid connector is mounted on the mount angles 11 via metal brackets 8 and slide rails 61 so that it can be pulled out to the front”);
in order to enable the servers to be installed and removed in a pull-out fashion (col. 10, Lines 44-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Gao as further suggested by Ota e.g., providing:
a set of rails fixed to a frame for mounting power electronics assemblies and components;
in order to enable the servers/components to be installed and removed in a pull-out fashion
Regarding the preamble, “A switchgear cabinet for power electronics”, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”); Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81.
In the instant case, the term “switchgear cabinet for power electronics” can be broadly interpreted because the claims do not set forth any switchgears or any limitations differentiating the claimed rack from a conventional electronics rack. Thus "switchgear cabinet for power electronics” is being interpreted as a rack that is intended to be/capable of housing switchgears/power electronics. Thus, the limitation “switchgear cabinet for power electronics” merely recite the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Accordingly, the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.
Further, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In the instant case, the prior art cabinet frame of Gao in view of Ota is capable of housing a switchgear and power electronics.
Additionally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to Claim 2, the obvious modification of Gao in view of Ota discloses:
wherein the heat exchanger (105 of Gao) comprises a recooler (105 cools air via flowing cooling liquid, releases heat to environment).
As to Claim 5, the obvious modification of Gao in view of Ota discloses:
further comprising an add-on wall (rear door 110 is “add-on wall” as it is separate from the rack 100) is arranged on a rear side of the switchgear cabinet 100 (door is a rear door 110; Gao);
wherein the add-on wall 110 includes the heat exchanger 105 (heat exchanger coil 105 disposed within rear door 110; Gao).
As to Claim 7, the obvious modification of Gao in view of Ota discloses:
the add-on wall 110 comprises a protective panel (inner portion of door 110) for the protection of the power electronics (servers 102);
the protective panel faces the power electronics 102 and is arranged between the power electronics 102 and the heat exchanger (coil 105; inner portion of door 110 provides barrier between coil 105 and servers 102; see thickness of door 410 corresponding to door 110 in Fig. 4A; Gao).
As to Claim 8, the obvious modification of Gao in view of Ota discloses:
wherein the add-on wall (110 of Gao) comprises a mounting surface for electronic (servers 102) and/or mechanical components of the switchgear cabinet 100 (col. 3, Lines 38-44 “rack manifold 101 distributes cooling liquid to cooling plates 107 that are thermally coupled to servers 101 and exchange heat from servers 101 to the cooling liquid flowing in the cooling plates 107. The cooling liquid from the cooling plates 107 can return to the rack manifold 101 that exits the cooling liquid out from the rear door 110 thus forming a server cooling loop”; servers and cooling plates mounted to manifold 101; Gao).
As to Claim 10, the obvious modification of Gao in view of Ota discloses:
wherein a fluidic connection between the main cooling circuit (107 of Gao) and the secondary cooling circuit (105 of Gao) is non-destructively releasable (105 and 107 are fluidly connected via inlet ports 202 and manifold 201, 107 are connected to manifold via blind mate and are non-destructively releasable; col. 4, Lines 23-30 “manifold supply and return ports 204 include male or female connectors, which can include dripless blind mate connectors. Any number of manifold supply and return ports 204 can be used for rear door 110. For one embodiment, once blade servers 101 are installed on rack 100, connectors to cooling plates 107 thermally coupled to servers 101 can be immediately connected to manifold supply and return ports 204 connectors”; Gao).
As to Claim 11, the obvious modification of Gao in view of Ota discloses:
wherein the secondary cooling circuit (105 of Gao) comprises control elements to adjust a volume flow within the secondary cooling circuit (col. 4, Lines 32-35 “although not shown, rear door 110 can include devices such as, e.g., an air bleeding valve, fluid valve, sensors, and a control module”; Gao).
As to Claim 13, the obvious modification of Gao in view of Ota discloses:
the heat exchanger (105 of Gao) is arranged within an installation space of the rear wall 110 (space in which 105 is installed is installation space).
Spearing discloses the claimed invention except for:
the installation space of the rear wall has a ratio of depth to length of not more than 0.05.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide the installation space of the rear wall has a ratio of depth to length of not more than 0.05, since
it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable (e.g., ratio of depth to width for effecting the space used within the rack) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456; 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (US 10912230 B1) in view of Ota (US 7318322 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kraft (US 20180106500 A1).
As to Claim 3, the obvious modification of Gao in view of Ota does not disclose:
wherein the heat exchanger comprises a ribbed pipe.
However, Kraft discloses:
wherein the heat exchanger (heat exchange tube 200; see Fig. 4A) comprises a ribbed pipe (Par. 0048 “the heat exchanger tube 200 may also comprise a plurality of ribs 212”);
in order to disturb a flow and/or locally accelerate the flow of fluid to provide an increased heat transfer rate (Par. 0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Gao in view of Ota as further suggested by Kraft e.g., providing:
wherein the heat exchanger comprises a ribbed pipe;
in order to disturb a flow and/or locally accelerate the flow of fluid to provide an increased heat transfer rate.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (US 10912230 B1) in view of Ota (US 7318322 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kraft (US 20180106500 A1).
As to Claim 4, the obvious modification of Gao in view of Ota does not disclose:
wherein the heat exchanger comprises a cushion plate heat exchanger.
However, Shedd discloses:
wherein the heat exchanger 40 comprises a cushion plate heat exchanger (Par. 0741 “the heat exchanger 40 can be any suitable air-to-liquid heat exchanger or liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger. Non-limiting types of suitable heat exchangers include shell-and-tube, fin-and-tube, micro-channel, plate, adiabatic-wheel, plate-fin, pillow-plate, fluid, dynamic-scraped-surface, phase-change, direct contact, and spiral type heat exchangers”);
in order to provide a heat exchanger capable of reducing the temperature of the coolant below its saturation temperature (Par. 0741).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Gao in view of Ota as further suggested by Shedd e.g., providing:
wherein the heat exchanger comprises a cushion plate heat exchanger;
in order to provide a heat exchanger capable of reducing the temperature of the coolant below its saturation temperature.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (US 10912230 B1) in view of Ota (US 7318322 B2) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kraft (US 20180106500 A1).
As to Claim 6, Spearing does not disclose:
wherein the add-on wall comprises a flow panel to direct airflow within the switchgear cabinet.
However, Nicolai discloses:
wherein the add-on wall 20 comprises a flow panel (combination of inner wall section 21 and fans 26) to direct airflow within the switchgear cabinet (rack 10; col. 2, Lines 43-45 “By means of the fans 26 it is possible to draw-off heated air or to blow in cold air at all those locations of the inner wall section 22 at which openings 25 are provided”);
in order to blow cold air into the rack 10 (col. 2, Lines 43-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Gao in view of Ota as further suggested by Nicolai e.g., providing:
wherein the add-on wall comprises a flow panel to direct airflow within the switchgear cabinet;
in order to blow cold air into the cabinet.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (US 10912230 B1) in view of Ota (US 7318322 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20160295737 A1).
As to Claim 9, the obvious modification of Gao in view of Ota does not disclose:
wherein branching of the secondary cooling circuit from the main cooling circuit is arranged in a lower region of the switchgear cabinet.
However, Kim discloses:
wherein branching of the secondary cooling circuit (connection pipes 34, Fig. 3) from the main cooling circuit (heat sink 30) is arranged in a lower region of the switchgear cabinet (bottom of internal space 14; Par. 0038 “The inlet and the outlet of the cooling water channel 31 are formed at the lower portion of the heat sink 30 close to the bottom of the internal space 14′. This is for preventing water leaking through the inlet and the outlet, that is, water leaking from internal couplers 32 (described below) at the inlet and the outlet from flowing to other components”);
in order to prevent damage to the module from potential leaks (Par. 0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Gao in view of Ota as further suggested by Brouillard e.g., providing:
wherein branching of the secondary cooling circuit from the main cooling circuit is arranged in a lower region of the switchgear cabinet;
in order to prevent damage to the module from potential leaks.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (US 10912230 B1) in view of Ota (US 7318322 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brouillard (WO 2012164261 A2). See previous PTO-892 for translation.
As to Claim 12, the obvious modification of Gao in view of Ota does not disclose:
the heat exchanger is arranged within a rectangular installation space between the rails; and
the installation space between the rails has a ratio of depth to length of not more than 0.1.
However, Brouillard discloses:
the heat exchanger 20 is arranged within a rectangular installation space between the rails 17a,17b (see attached translation Pg. 15, Par. 2, cooling matrix 20 is mounted onto U-rails 17a,17b, space is rectangular; see Figs. 5a-5d); and
the installation space between the rails 17a,17b has a ratio of depth to length of not more than 0.1 (see Pg. 15, Par. 4, cooling unit 20 has depth of 25mm and Pg. 16, Par. 4, a width of 250mm which is equivalent to a 0.1 ratio of depth to width);
in order to provide a lighter weight heat exchanger capable of being mounted directly over the heat source (Pg. 7, Par. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Gao in view of Ota as further suggested by Brouillard e.g., providing:
the heat exchanger is arranged within a rectangular installation space between the rails; and
the installation space between the rails has a ratio of depth to length of not more than 0.1;
in order to provide a lighter weight heat exchanger capable of being mounted directly over the heat source.
Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable (e.g., ratio of depth to width for effecting the space used within the rack) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456; 105 USPQ 233.
Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable (e.g., ratio of depth to width for effecting the space used within the rack) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to Claim 14, the obvious modification of Gao in view of Ota does not disclose:
wherein the heat exchanger has a length of not more than 1000 mm, a width of not more than 290 mm, and a depth of not more than 20 mm.
However, Brouillard discloses:
wherein the heat exchanger 20 has a length of not more than 1000 mm (Pg. 16, Par. 4, between 250mm-570mm), a width of not more than 290 mm (the height may be 10U or less, see Pg. 17, Par. 1, wherein 1U is 44.45mm see Pg. 1, Par. 2), and a depth of not more than 20 mm (Pg. 15, Par. 4 depth of around 25mm);
in order to easily accommodate the cooling unit/cooling matrix 20 within internal dimensions of the cabinet (Pg. 15, Par. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Gao in view of Ota as further suggested by Brouillard e.g., providing:
wherein the heat exchanger has a length of not more than 1000 mm, a width of not more than 290 mm, and a depth of not more than 20 mm;
in order to easily accommodate the cooling unit/cooling matrix within internal dimensions of the cabinet.
Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable (e.g., relative dimensions of the heat exchanger for effecting the space used within the rack) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456; 105 USPQ 233.
Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable (e.g., relative dimensions of the heat exchanger for effecting the space used within the rack) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant suggests "Independent Claim 1 requires the secondary cooling circuit "remove heat from the cooling medium." The identified secondary cooling circuit, heat exchanger coil 105, adds heat to the cooling medium in order to cool "hot exhaust air from the servers." For at least these reasons, Independent Claim 1 is not rendered obvious by the cited references, where considered alone or in combination." (Remarks, Pg. 8).
In response, Examiner notes that heat exchanger coil 105 indirectly cools the cooling liquid within the rack by cooling the air within rack 100. The coil 105 provides overall cooling for the rack 100 and thus provides indirect cooling to the liquid within the rack 100.
Additionally, the amendments to claim 15 have been fully addressed in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW S MUIR whose telephone number is (571)270-1329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/MATTHEW SINCLAIR MUIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/Jayprakash N Gandhi/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights