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 Interpretation
The limitation “autonomous” has not been sufficiently defined in the specification nor the claims. As such, the examiner will interpret this as meaning “existing or capable of existing independently” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, definition 3a).
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2 and 3, “the IC cooling block” should be “the IC liquid cooling block.”
Claims 2 and 3, “IC cooling blocks’ should be “IC liquid cooling blocks.”
Claims 9 and 10, “comprises” should be “further comprises.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The newly amended claim 4 recites the limitation “an air-to-liquid heat exchanger configured to draw in ambient air to cool the first cooling fluid of the autonomous rack liquid conduit.” However, when referring to the air-to-liquid heat exchanger (112), the specification states (para [0069]) “The cool rack cooling fluid 111 is directed through the at least one air-to-liquid heat exchanger 112 in which thermal energy is transferred to the cool rack cooling fluid 111, raising the temperature…” That is the ambient air does not cool the first cooling fluid, but raises its temperature. Thus, newly amended claim 4 is not supported in the specification.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 9-10, and 14-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the claim recites the limitation;
“an autonomous direct cooling rack comprising:
an autonomous rack liquid cooling block…
a liquid cooling module…”
As the claim is written, the liquid cooling module (108) is within the direct cooling rack (200) (see Figure 1). Further, the IC liquid conduit is configured to “circulate the second cooling liquid through the IC cooling block and the liquid cooling module.”
Claim 1 also has the limitation;
“An immersion cooling rack configured to be fluidly isolated from a fluid connection with the autonomous direct cooling rack…”
It is not possible then, that the immersion cooling rack (300) be fluidly isolated from a fluid connection with the autonomous direct cooling rack (200), because the second cooling fluid passes through direct cooling rack (200) at (116).
As to claim 3, the claim recites “each of the plurality of IC cooling blocks are housed within each of the plurality of immersion casings.” This claim is indefinite as it is unclear whether each casing gets multiple cooling blocks, or each casing gets a “corresponding” cooling block (see amendments to claim 2).
As to claims 9, 10, 14, and 15, it is unclear if the plurality of racks each contain all of the elements of claim 1, or if these racks are in addition to the limitations of claim 1 that are part of autonomous direct cooling rack.
As to claims 14 and 15, it is unclear what the relationship is between a “distinct rack liquid cooling block” and “an autonomous rack liquid cooling block” of claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/162174 to Verzijl in view of US 2013/0025818 to Lyon et al. further in view of US 2023/0156959 to Malouin et al. and further in view of US 2016/0278239 to Chainer et al.
As to claim 1, Verzijl discloses a rack assembly (101, fig. 1), comprising: an autonomous direct cooling rack (111, autonomous in the since that it can operate independently of the immersion cooling rack 112), comprising: a liquid cooling module (140, para [0027] teaches a first heat exchanger located inside 140 which transfers heat from a first fluid circuit to a second fluid circuit, para [0020] states that the first cooling fluid could be liquid, while para [0023] states that the second coolant fluid is oil, thus making 140 a liquid cooling module), an immersion cooling (IC) rack (112) configured to be fluidly isolated from a fluid connection with the autonomous direct cooling rack (thus the need for heat exchanger 145), comprising: a dielectric immersion cooling liquid (para [0023], “the immersion liquid, e.g. electrically non-conductive oil”); an IC electronic processing assembly (130) submerged in the immersion cooling liquid (para [0013], “immersion-cooled server modules”); an IC liquid conduit (144/142, fig. 1) configured to circulate the second cooling liquid through the immersion cooled server modules (130) and the liquid cooling module (140); wherein the autonomous direct cooling rack and the IC rack are thermally coupled via the liquid cooling module (via heat exchanger 145) such that thermal energy can be transferred between the IC liquid conduit and the autonomous rack liquid conduit (see above explanation for liquid cooling module 140) within the liquid cooling module.
Verzijl fails to disclose an autonomous rack liquid cooling block configured to internally channel a first cooling liquid and be positioned in direct thermal contact with an autonomous rack electronic processing assembly for cooling thereof. Further, while Verzijl teaches an autonomous rack liquid conduit (para [0020]), Verzijl fails to disclose an autonomous rack liquid conduit configured to circulate the first cooling liquid through the cooling block and the cooling module. Lyon teaches a rack liquid cooling block (110a, fig. 2) configured to internally channel a first cooling liquid and be positioned in direct thermal contact with an autonomous rack electronic processing assembly (fig. 2) for cooling thereof, as well as a rack liquid conduit (17a/b, fig. 3) configured to circulate a first cooling liquid through the cooling block (110a) and liquid cooling module (15, para [0050], “liquid-liquid heat exchanger). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the air-cooled system of Verzijl with the liquid cooling block system of Lyon in order to save on air conditioning costs as taught by Lyon (para [0010]).
While Verzijl disclose a liquid-liquid heat exchanger as discussed above, Verzijl is silent as to the liquid-liquid heat exchanger being a plate heat exchanger. Chainer teaches (para [0040], last 2 lines) that a plate heat exchanger is an exemplary, non-limiting type of liquid-liquid heat exchanger. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to substitute the liquid-liquid heat exchanger of Verzijl with a plate heat exchanger as taught by Chainer as a choice of design, a plate heat exchanger being well known in the art as characterized by Chainer.
Verzijl further discloses an immersion cooling rack (112) but fails to disclose an IC cooling block configured to internally channel a second cooling liquid and be positioned in direct thermal contact with the submerged IC electronic processing assembly. Malouin teaches an IC cooling block (206) configured to internally channel a second cooling liquid and be positioned in direct thermal contact with a submerged IC electronic processing assembly (204). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the IC cooling rack and conduit of Verzijl with the cooling block of Malouin in order to efficiently cool both low power (202) and high power (204) electronics in the same tank as taught by Malouin (e.g. paragraph [0008]).
As to claim 2, modified Verzijl teaches the rack assembly of claim 1. Verzijl fails to disclose wherein the IC rack further comprises: a plurality of immersion casings fluidly connected in parallel with one another and configured to house the dielectric immersion cooling liquid. Verzijl teaches a plurality of racks (120) connected in parallel with one another, as well as the IC rack housing the dielectric immersion cooling liquid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the IC rack (112) of Verzijl to comprise a plurality of immersion casings fluidly connected in parallel with one another, as a mere choice of design to increase capacity of the system.
Verzijl is also silent as to wherein the IC cooling block comprises a plurality of IC cooling blocks , and each of the plurality of IC cooling blocks are housed within corresponding immersion casings. The combination of Verzijl and Malouin has already demonstrated IC cooling blocks located within the immersion casings. It would be obvious that each of the immersion casings would contain a corresponding IC cooling block as the system has merely been duplicated and arranged in parallel as explained above.
As to claim 3, modified Verzijl teaches the rack assembly of claim 1, Verzijl in view of Malouin further discloses an IC cooling block located in the immersion casings. Verzijl is silent to a plurality of IC racks immersion casings fluidly connected in series with one another and configured to house the dielectric immersion cooling liquid: wherein the IC cooling block comprises a plurality of IC cooling blocks; and, each of the plurality of IC cooling blocks are housed within each of the plurality of immersion casings. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the IC units of Verzijl to comprise multiple units connected in series as mere choice of design, the applicant giving no criticality to the series configuration, and the duplication of parts requiring merely routine skill in the art (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
As to claim 5, modified Verzijl teaches the rack assembly of claim 1. Modified Verzijl further teaches wherein the liquid cooling module further comprises a cooling module pump (see e.g. Abstract, fluid is pumped through both first and second fluid circuits), wherein the cooling module pump is fluidly connected in series to the liquid cooling module liquid-to-liquid plate heat exchanger.
As to claim 6, the combination of Verzijl and Lyon teach the rack assembly of claim 1, wherein the autonomous rack liquid cooling block is positioned to be fluidly connected downstream from the liquid cooling module, as the autonomous rack which contains the cooling block, is located downstream from the cooling module (see fig. 1 of Verzijl).
As to claim 9, Verzijl further teaches the rack assembly of claim 1, wherein the autonomous direct cooling rack (111) comprises a plurality of racks (120) connected in parallel with one another.
As to claim 10, modified Verzijl teaches the rack assembly of claim 1. Verzijl fails to teach wherein the autonomous direct cooling rack comprises a plurality of racks fluidly connected in series with one another. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the autonomous cooling racks of Verzijl to comprise multiple units connected in series as mere choice of design, the applicant giving no criticality to the series configuration, and the rearrangement of parts requiring merely routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
As to claim 13, the modification of Verzijl and Lyon further teaches an autonomous direct cooling rack conduit (see rejection of claim 1 above), which would necessarily comprise an inlet and an outlet. Verzijl further teaches a fluid temperature difference between a first inlet and outlet of a first cooling fluid being 15°C (e.g. para [0114]), but is silent as to wherein the autonomous direct cooling rack liquid conduit comprising an inlet and an outlet and wherein a temperature difference of the first cooling liquid between the inlet and the outlet is greater than 20°C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to arrive at an approaching or similar temperature difference as it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, where the ranges are close, requires only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 14, modified Verzijl teaches the rack assembly of claim 1, Verzijl further teaches wherein the autonomous direct cooling rack further comprises a plurality of racks (120). Verzijl is silent as to each rack comprising a distinct rack liquid cooling block. Lyon teaches a plurality of racks (fig. 2) each with a rack cooling block (110a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the air-cooled system of Verzijl with the liquid cooling block system of Lyon in order to save on air conditioning costs as taught by Lyon (para [0010]).
The combination of Verzijl and Lyon is silent as to each rack comprising a distinct air-to-liquid heat exchanger. Verzijl teaches an air-to-liquid heat exchanger (para [0036], ll. 5-10) located in the autonomous direct cooling rack (111). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify each rack with a distinct air-liquid heat exchanger as taught by Verzijl to further dissipate heat of the system.
Verzijl is silent to wherein the distinct rack liquid cooling blocks are connected in series with one another and the distinct air-to-liquid heat exchanger are connected in series with one another. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the cooling blocks of Verzijl and Lyon, as well as the air-liquid heat exchangers of modified Verzijl to be arranged in series as mere choice of design, the applicant giving no criticality to the series configuration, and the rearrangement of parts requiring merely routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
As to claim 15, modified Verzijl teaches the rack assembly of claim 1, Verzijl further teaches wherein the autonomous direct cooling rack further comprises a plurality of racks (120). Verzijl is silent as to each rack comprising a distinct rack liquid cooling block. Lyon teaches a plurality of racks (fig. 2) each with a rack cooling block (110a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the air-cooled system of Verzijl with the liquid cooling block system of Lyon in order to save on air conditioning costs as taught by Lyon (para [0010]).
The combination of Verzijl and Lyon is silent as to each rack comprising a distinct air-to-liquid heat exchanger. Verzijl teaches an air-to-liquid heat exchanger (para [0036], ll. 5-10) located in the autonomous direct cooling rack (111). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify each rack with a distinct air-liquid heat exchanger as taught by Verzijl to further dissipate heat of the system.
Verzijl further teaches the individual racks (120) being in parallel with one another. This would make obvious that the cooling blocks of each rack as well as the heat exchangers of each rack would also be in parallel to one another.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/162174 to Verzijl in view of US 2013/0025818 to Lyon et al. further in view of US 2023/0156959 to Malouin et al. and US 2016/0278239 to Chainer et al., and further in view of US 10,244,655 to IBM.
As to claim 4, modified Verzijl teaches the rack assembly of claim 1. Verzijl fails to teach wherein autonomous direct cooling rack further comprises an air-to-liquid heat exchanger configured to draw in ambient air to cool the first cooling fluid of the autonomous rack liquid conduit. IBM teaches a heat exchanger (114) configured to draw in ambient air to cool a refrigerant (col. 6, ll. 32-33) in a rack cooling assembly (100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the filing to modify the rack liquid conduit of modified Verzijl, with a heat exchanger as taught by IBM for the purposes of cooling the first cooling fluid with ambient air.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection necessitated by amendments.
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 JAMIL ALEXANDER DECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6578. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Mon-Fri.
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.
/JAMIL ALEXANDER DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/ROBERT J HOFFBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights