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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inano et al. (US 20170303443 A1) (of record, cited in IDS) in view of Saito (US 20180363994 A1) (of record, cited in IDS) and Keehn et al. (US 10925188 B1), hereafter referred to as Inano, Saito, and Keehn, respectively.
With regards to claim 1, Inano discloses the claimed container-type data center (1) (Fig. 1) comprising: a container (2) (Fig. 1) that is disposed in an electronic component cooling space (The left side of Fig. 1, accommodating the various cooling components), and stores a cooling liquid therein (Container 2 stores a cooling fluid 4) (Fig. 1); a board (51) (Fig. 1) that is disposed to be immersed in the cooling liquid in the container (See Figs. 1, 2), a plurality of electronic components being mounted on the board (5, 52-56) (Fig. 1); a temperature control unit (3) (Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0044-0046] describe cooling tower / temperature control unit 3) that is disposed in a temperature control space (The right side of Fig. 1, accommodating the various heat dissipation components), and cools the cooling liquid guided from an inside of the container, and returns the cooling liquid to the container (See Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0044-0046] describe cooling tower 3 cooling the fluid 4 heated within immersion tank 2.); and an exhaust device (35) (Fig. 1) that exhausts air in the temperature control space to an outside is installed in the exhaust port (See Fig. 1).
Inano does not explicitly disclose:
a container body, wherein the container is accommodated in the container body, and a drain pan that is accommodated in the container body and that receives the cooling liquid leaking from the container below the container (See Fig. 2).
However, Saito discloses:
a drain pan (21, 33) (Fig. 4) that receives the cooling liquid leaking from the container below the container (See Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Inano with the drain pan of Saito. In doing do, one of ordinary skill would know to place the drain pan below the temperature control unit and container, as those are the components housing liquid that could potentially drip. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to better protect other components from liquid damage and/or corrosion, and to limit spillage.
Additionally, Keehn discloses:
a container body (104) (Fig. 4a) that accommodates a plurality of containers (108, 160, 140, 150) (Fig. 4a) inside said body (See Fig. 4a), wherein the container body includes a partition wall member (Wall between 108 and 140, with inlet 141 and outlet 142) (Fig. 4a) that separates a temperature control space (The area surrounding 140) (Fig. 4a) from an electronic component cooling space (The area surrounding 108) (Fig. 4a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) to have modified the Inano-Saito combination so that the submodules were accommodated within the container body of Keehn. In doing so, one of ordinary skill would know to replace the server 108 with the container 2 of Inano, and the condenser assembly 140 with the temperature control unit 3 of Inano, as the parts fulfill similar purposes. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to better protect the subsystems of the Inano-Saito combination, and to improve structural stability and modularity of the overall system.
Also, 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).
With regards to claim 3, Inano, Saito, and Keehn disclose all as applied to claim 1, and Inano additionally discloses:
wherein an air intake port (36) (Fig. 1) is formed in a door or an outer wall portion forming the temperature control space (Outer wall of temperature control unit 3) (Fig. 1), and a heat exchanger (13, 33) (Fig. 1) that cools the cooling liquid is installed (See Fig. 1).
Inano does not explicitly disclose wherein the heat exchanger (i.e., loop 13 or sprayer 33) is installed in the air inlet port. However, it would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) to have placed the loop in the air inlet, as the change in position would have not modified the operation of the device, i.e., cooling the loop 13. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claim 4, Inano, Saito, and Keehn disclose all as applied to claim 3, and Inano additionally discloses:
wherein an exhaust port (37) (Fig. 1) is formed in the door or the outer wall portion at a position different from the air intake port (See Fig. 1).
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claim 6, Inano, Saito, and Keehn disclose all as applied to claim 1, but Inano and Keehn do not explicitly disclose:
a plurality of frames that are provided below the container, wherein the drain pan is provided in a space formed between the frames.
However, Saito discloses:
a plurality of frames (36) (Fig. 4) that are provided below the container (Below drain pan 21) (Fig. 4), wherein the drain pan is provided in a space formed between the frames (Drain pans 21 and 33 are located centrally between supports 36) (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Inano-Saito-Keehn combination to include the additional supports / frames, as taught by Saito. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the structural stability of the Inano-Saito-Keehn combination, and to provide additional space for drainage.
See also KSR, supra.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inano, Saito, and Keehn, in further view of Sato et al. (US 20080232064 A1) (of record, cited in IDS), hereafter referred to as Sato.
With regards to claim 5, Inano, Saito, and Keehn disclose all as applied to claim 3, but Inano, Saito, and Keehn do not explicitly disclose:
wherein a louver and a filter are provided on an air flow upstream side of the heat exchanger.
However, Sato discloses:
wherein a louver (Cooling coils 10 act as louver slats) (Fig.3a) and a filter (11) (Fig. 3a) are provided on an air flow upstream side of the heat exchanger (See Fig. 3a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) to have modified the Inano-Saito-Keehn combination to include the filter and louver specifics of Sato. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the airflow quality and coherence through the Inano-Saito-Keehn combination.
Also, 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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE OXENKNECHT whose telephone number is (703)756-1976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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.
/K.O./Examiner, Art Unit 2835
/MANDEEP S BUTTAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835