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 .
Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.05.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites, “and return circuit-“ which appears to be incorrect. It appears it should be changed to read, “and return circuit”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,507,383. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-14, 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11, 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,507,383. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘383 reference recites all the same limitations therein verbatim.
With respect to claim 3, claim 2 of the ‘383 reference recites all the same limitations therein verbatim.
With respect to claim 4, claim 3 of the ‘383 reference recites all the same limitations therein verbatim.
With respect to claim 5, claim 4 of the ‘383 reference recites all the same limitations therein verbatim.
With respect to claim 8, claim 5 of the ‘383 reference recites all the same limitations therein verbatim.
With respect to claim 9, claim 6 of the ‘383 reference recites all the same limitations therein verbatim.
With respect to claim 10, claim 7 of the ‘383 reference recites all the same limitations therein verbatim.
With respect to claim 11, claim 8 of the ‘383 reference recites all the same limitations therein verbatim.
With respect to claim 12, claim 9 of the ‘383 reference recites all the same limitations therein verbatim.
With respect to claim 13, claim 10 of the ‘383 reference recites all the same limitations therein verbatim.
With respect to claim 14, claim 11 of the ‘383 reference recites all the same limitations therein verbatim.
With respect to claim 16, claim 13 of the ‘383 reference recites all the same limitations therein verbatim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-10, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lebon et al. (Cited on the IDS filed 9/10/2024 – hereinafter, “Lebon”).
With respect to claims 1-2, Lebon teaches a server unit (“sealed hybrid-cooled high performance computing server, fig. 1) comprising a plurality of electronic components including at least one fan (“fans", p. 2 col. 2), memory (“RAM among "key specifications" listed on p. 2 col 1) and a central processing unit (“Processor”, among "key specifications” listed on p. 7 col 2), the server unit comprising a first enclosure (“internal case", p. 2 col. 2, fig. 1) and a second enclosure (“outer case", p. 2 col. 2, fig. 1), the at least one fan, the memory and the central processing unit, CPU, being provided within the first enclosure (fig. 1), the first enclosure being provided within the second enclosure (fig. 1), the second enclosure being sealed such that ambient air does not ingress or degress from the second enclosure (implied by "sealed server enclosure", p. 2 col. 4), the first enclosure comprising air conduits to allow a passage of fan assisted air from the first enclosure to the second enclosure, and from the second enclosure to the first enclosure (“The outer case encloses the server allowing sufficient space for airflow into and out of the server, as well as front-to-back bypass ducts to recirculate the enclosed air for cooling all non-CPU/GPU components" p. 2 col. 2), and wherein: the second enclosure comprises at least one baffle to preferentially direct air egressing from a first end of the first enclosure to then enter into a second end of the first enclosure (See Fig A below); an air liquid heat exchanger (“two internal copper 40 mm air-to- water heat exchangers”) located in an air flow path between the first enclosure and the second enclosure such that heated air passing between the first enclosure and the second enclosure passes through the air liquid heat exchanger to effect an extraction of the heat from the heated air (“The working fluid passes then through two infernal copper 40 mm air-to-water heat exchangers. Air is circulated through the internal case and across the radiators by eight 40 mm Sanyo Denki fans", p. 2 col. 1, fig. 1), the air liquid neat exchanger being in fluid communication with a liquid coolant conduit, the liquid coolant conduit being configured to effect a transfer of heat from the air liquid heat exchanger to a location externally of the second enclosure ("The unit's fluid-loop is connected to a remote Heal Dissipation and Distribution Unit, which encloses a M510 TCS pump [3] and quad fan-cooled air-liquid heat exchanger and which dissipates the heat generated within the sealed server enclosure to the ambient surrounding air.”, "The working fluid passes then through two internal copper 40 mm air-to-water heat exchangers", p. 2 col. 1); and the first enclosure further comprises a liquid cooling unit (first jet impingement cold plate") configured to direct liquid onto the central processing unit (The pump circulates water into the sealed case, directing the coolant to the first jet impingement cold plate; this consists of 45 microjets impinging on the cooper plate attached to the CPU.", p. 2 col. 1), the liquid cooling unit being in fluid communication with the liquid coolant conduit, such that heat emitted from the central processing unit is also transferred into the liquid coolant conduit (fig 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
541
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, Lebon further teaches that the liquid cooling unit comprises a jet impingement plate (“The pump circulates water into the sealed case, directing the coolant to the first jet impingement cold plate”).
With respect to claim 9, Lebon further teaches that the at least one fan of the first enclosure is provided adjacent an air inlet of the first enclosure, the at least one fan configured to induce an air flow over electronic components within the first enclosure (See: Fig 1, see also p. 2, col. 1).
With respect to claim 10, Lebon further teaches that the at least one fan is configured to induce the air flow onto the air liquid heat exchanger located in the air flow path between the first enclosure and the second enclosure (“Air is circulated through the internal case and across the radiators by eight 40 mm Sanyo Denki fans”).
With respect to claim 13, Lebon further teaches a plurality of liquid cooling units, each liquid cooling unit providing dedicated cooling for an individual electronic component (See Fig 5, one cooling unit for each of the GPU’s and the CPU).
With respect to claim 15, Lebon further teaches that the liquid coolant conduit is in fluid communication with an external cooling system (“The unit's fluid-loop is connected to a remote Heat Dissipation and Distribution Unit, which encloses a M510 TCS pump [3] and quad fan-cooled air-liquid heat exchanger and which dissipates the heat generated within the sealed server enclosure to the ambient surrounding air.”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebon in view of Pan (US 2021/0071855).
With respect to claim 8, Lebon teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest that the second enclosure is IP67 rated.
Pan, however, teaches an enclosure (110) which is IP67 rated (¶ 0018).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pan with that of Lebon, such that the second enclosure of Lebon is IP67 rated, as taught by Pan, since doing so would help to protect enclosed electrical circuits (Pan: ¶ 0018).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebon in view of Zeighami et al. (US 2015/0048950 – hereinafter, “Zeighami”).
With respect to claim 11, Lebon teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest that the second enclosure is hermetically sealed.
Zeighami, however, teaches an enclosure (389) which is hermetically sealed (¶ 0051).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zeighami with that of Lebon, such that the second enclosure of Lebon is hermetically sealed, as taught by Zeighami, since doing so would help to protect enclosed electrical circuits.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebon in view of Zeighami and further in view of Hyland (US 2024/0090162).
With respect to claim 12, Lebon as modified by Zeighami teaches the limitations of claim 11 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest that each of the first enclosure and the second enclosure are filled with an inert gas.
Hyland, however, teaches filling an enclosure with an inert gas (¶ 0050, “In one embodiment, enclosure is be filled with dry nitrogen, another gas, a liquid or a high thermal conductivity, low coefficient of expansion solid that provides mechanical strength to enclosure 20”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hyland with that of Lebon, such that the first enclosure and the second enclosure are filled with an inert gas, as taught by Hyland, since doing so would help to protect enclosed electrical circuits, for example from corrosion or fire.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebon in view of Tung et al. (US 2014/0085808 – hereinafter, “Tung”).
With respect to claim 14, Lebon teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest an external surface of the unit provides Radio Frequency, RF, shielding to internal electronic components.
Tung, however, teaches an external surface (External surface of cover 260) of a server unit (20) that provides Radio Frequency, RF, shielding to internal electronic components (¶ 0021 “The server 20 comprises a chassis 210, a circuit board 220, a first heat source 230, a second heat source 240, a liquid cooling device 250, and a shielding cover 260.”h05k).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tung with that of Lebon, such that an external surface of the unit provides Radio Frequency, RF, shielding to internal electronic components, as taught by Tung, since doing so would help to protect enclosed electrical circuits from external electromagnetic interference.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebon in view of Yun et al. (US 2012/0253571 – hereinafter, “Yun”).
With respect to claim 16, Lebon teaches the limitations of claim 15 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest that the external cooling system is a vehicle cooling system.
Yun, however, teaches an external cooling system (225) for an electronic device (150) where the external cooling system (225) is a part of a vehicle cooling system (¶ 104, “As a result, the cooling fluid may be passed through the radiator 225 to cool the inside of the vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yun with that of Lebon, such that the external cooling system of Lebon is a vehicle cooling system, as taught by Yun, since doing so would allow the coolant in the server unit to cool the inside of a vehicle.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebon in view of Ota et al. (US 2004/0221604 – hereinafter, “Ota”) and further in view of Nie et al. (CN 211297498 – hereinafter, “Nie”).
With respect to claim 21, Lebon teaches an edge computer server unit (“sealed hybrid-cooled high performance computing server, fig. 1) comprising a plurality of electronic components including at least one fan (“fans", p. 2 col. 2), memory (“RAM among "key specifications" listed on p. 2 col 1) and a central processing unit (“Processor”, among "key specifications” listed on p. 7 col 2), the server unit comprising: a sealed first enclosure (“internal case", p. 2 col. 2, fig. 1), the first enclosure being sealed such that ambient air does not ingress or degress from the first enclosure (implied by "sealed server enclosure", p. 2 col. 4), the at least one fan, the memory and the central processing unit, CPU, being provided within the first enclosure (fig. 1), and the first enclosure further comprises a liquid cooling unit (first jet impingement cold plate") configured to direct liquid onto the central processing unit (The pump circulates water into the sealed case, directing the coolant to the first jet impingement cold plate; this consists of 45 microjets impinging on the cooper plate attached to the CPU.", p. 2 col. 1), the liquid cooling unit being in fluid communication with a liquid coolant conduit (Pipes in Fig 1 or Fig A above), such that heat emitted from the central processing unit is transferred into the liquid coolant conduit (fig 1).
Lebon fails to specifically teach or suggest a second enclosure, the second enclosure being isolated from the first enclosure such that air does not pass between the second enclosure and the first enclosure, the second enclosure comprising a heat exchanger in fluid communication with the liquid cooling conduit, wherein the heat exchanger comprises a fan configured to vent heated air externally of the second enclosure, and a mounting arrangement configured to facilitate a mounting of the server unit to a telecommunications pole or mast.
Ota, however, teaches (In Fig 5) a second enclosure (40), the second enclosure being isolated from a first enclosure (1) such that air does not pass between the second enclosure and the first enclosure (See Fig 5, 40 and 1 are physically separated from each other), the second enclosure comprising a heat exchanger (48) in fluid communication with a liquid cooling conduit (Conduit of 21, liquid flow from 21 into 48 to be cooled), wherein the heat exchanger comprises a fan (47) configured to vent heated air externally of the second enclosure (See Fig 5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ota with that of Lebon, such that Lebon includes a second enclosure, the second enclosure being isolated from the first enclosure such that air does not pass between the second enclosure and the first enclosure, the second enclosure comprising a heat exchanger in fluid communication with the liquid cooling conduit, wherein the heat exchanger comprises a fan configured to vent heated air externally of the second enclosure, as taught by Ota, since doing so would prevent heat from transferring back toward the first sealed enclosure.
With respect to the limitations requiring a mounting arrangement configured to facilitate a mounting of the server unit to a telecommunications pole or mast, Nie teaches (In Figs 1-2) a server (1) with a mounting arrangement (2) configured to facilitate a mounting of the server unit to a telecommunications pole or mast (The mounting arrangement allows for the server to be mounted to a pole or mast).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nie with that of Lebon as modified by Ota, such that the edge server of Lebon includes a mounting arrangement configured to facilitate a mounting of a server unit to a telecommunications pole or mast, as taught by Nie, since doing so would allow for the edge server of Lebon to be mounted in a remote location.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 17-20, 22 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.
With respect to claims 4-7, 17-20, the allowability resides in the overall structure of the device as recited in dependent claim 4 and at least in part because claim 4 recites, “a third enclosure, the third enclosure being isolated from the first and second enclosures such that air does not pass between the third enclosure, and each of the first and second enclosures, the third enclosure comprising a heat exchanger in fluid communication with the liquid cooling conduit”.
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of claim 4 are believed to render said claim 4 and all claims dependent therefrom patentable over the art of record.
While Lebon teaches many of the limitations of claim 4 as per the above rejection to claim 1, neither Lebon nor any other art of record – either alone or in combination – teach or suggest the above-mentioned limitations of claim 4.
With respect to claim 22, the allowability resides in the overall structure of the device as recited in dependent claim 22 and at least in part because claim 22 recites, “the first enclosure is provided within a third enclosure, the third enclosure being sealed such that ambient air does not ingress or degress from the third enclosure, the first enclosure comprising air conduits to allow a passage of fan assisted air from the first enclosure to the third enclosure, and from the third enclosure to the first enclosure”.
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of claim 22 are believed to render said claim 22 patentable over the art of record.
While Lebon, Ota, and Nie teach many of the limitations of claim 21 as per the above rejection to claim 21, neither Lebon nor Ota nor Nie nor any other art of record – either alone or in combination – teach or suggest the above-mentioned limitations of claim 22.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M PAPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am - 6pm 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, Jayprakash N 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.
/ZACHARY PAPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835