CTNF 18/622,687 CTNF 94264 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement 06-49-07 The information disclosure statement filed 03/29/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. This objection specifically refers to the Foreign Patent Document CN 215494919 U. (FP 6.49.07 ) 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: "liquid cooling management logic" in claims 1 and 18. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-19 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. Claim 1 recites “the memory comprises a liquid cooling management logic that is configured to: determine a condition of the device; and adjust a state of one or more hydraulic solenoid valves …”. It is not clear how a memory can determine a condition and adjust valves. Claim 18 recites “the memory comprises a liquid cooling management logic that is configured to: detect a coolant leak in the device based on a leak detector; and cause one or more hydraulic solenoid valves to close …”. It is not clear how a memory can detect a coolant leak and close valves. Claims 1 and 18 recite “the device corresponds to a liquid cooling system for a device enclosure that is mountable in a server rack”. It is not clear whether the device comprises the liquid cooling system or not. Claim 15 recites “the device is associated with an open loop liquid cooling system”. It is not clear how the device is associated with an open loop liquid cooling system, and the relationship between “an open loop liquid cooling system” and “a liquid cooling system” recited in claim 15 is not clear. Regarding claims 2-17 and 19, dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent(s). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-4, 9, 11-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) & (a)(2 ) as being anticipated by SHELNUTT US 20180092254 A1 . Regarding claim 1, SHELNUTT teaches a device (Fig. 1 [0040] - [0044] controller 142 with controllers 114, 116 and 118), comprising: at least one network interface controller configured to provide access to a network; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises a liquid cooling management logic (Fig. 1 [0040] - [0044] controller 142 with controllers 114, 116 and 118 performing cooling management) that is configured to: determine a condition of the device (Fig. 1 [0043] [0044] controlling valves based on detected temperature and/or leak); and adjust a state of one or more hydraulic solenoid valves to effect a change in a coolant flow in the device based on the determined condition of the device (Fig. 1 [0043] [0044] closing solenoid valve 126 to mitigate a detected leak), wherein the device is associated with a liquid cooling system for a device enclosure that is mountable in a server rack (Fig. 1 [0040] – [0044] the controllers performing cooling management of the liquid cooled system for the IT gears mountable in the rack 104). Regarding claim 2, SHELNUTT further teaches the processor is associated with a baseboard management controller (Fig. 1 [0040] - [0044] controller 142 with controllers 114, 116 and 118). Regarding claim 3, SHELNUTT further teaches the device further comprises a leak detector, and wherein determining the condition of the device comprises detecting a coolant leak in the device based on the leak detector ([0043] [0044] closing solenoid valve 126 when detecting a leak by sensors 144 and 146). Regarding claim 4, SHELNUTT further teaches adjusting the state of the one or more hydraulic solenoid valves to effect the change in the coolant flow comprises causing at least one of the one or more hydraulic solenoid valves to close to stop the coolant flow in the device based on the detected coolant leak ([0043] [0044] closing solenoid valve 126 when detecting a leak by sensors 144 and 146). Regarding claim 9, SHELNUTT further teaches the at least one of the one or more hydraulic solenoid valves comprises a hydraulic solenoid valve on a coolant inlet line of the device (Fig. 1 [0043] supply valves 126). Regarding claim 11, SHELNUTT further teaches at least one of the one or more hydraulic solenoid valves are inside the device enclosure (Fig. 1 valve 126 are inside the rack 104). Regarding claim 12, SHELNUTT further teaches at least one of the one or more hydraulic solenoid valves are outside the device enclosure (Fig. 1 [0043] a supply valve 126 is provided to control the coolant supply from external facility supply 128 outside the rack, whether the supply valve is placed inside the rack or outside the rack is mere design choices choosing from limited two options that is not patentable. See MPEP 2143(I)). Regarding claim 13, SHELNUTT further teaches the device enclosure comprises a blade chassis ([0062] blade chassis). Regarding claim 14, SHELNUTT further teaches the device enclosure comprises a rack chassis ([0007] a rack with chassis-receiving bays). Regarding claim 15, SHELNUTT further teaches the device is associated with an open loop liquid cooling system (Fig. 1 [0041] [0043] open loop liquid cooling system 100). Claim 18 recites similar limitations to that of claim 4 therefore is rejected on the same basis. Regarding claim 20, it is directed to a method of carrying out the device with similar limitations as set forth in claim 18. Since SHELNUTT teaches the claimed device, he teaches the method steps for implementing the device. In addition, SHELNUTT further teaches transmitting a signal based on the determination to the liquid cooling system associated with the device enclosure ([0043] [0044] closing solenoid valve 126 when detecting a leak by sensors 144 and 146) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHELNUTT as applied to claims 1-4, 9, 11-15, 18 and 20 above, in view of YU KR 101969575 B1 . Regarding claim 5, SHELNUTT does not explicitly further teach the leak detector comprises a single wire leak detector. YU explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the leak detector comprises a single wire leak detector (page 6 paragraph 2 single wire leak detector). 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 SHELNUTT to incorporate the teachings of YU, because they all directed to fluid leaking detection, to make the device wherein the leak detector comprises a single wire leak detector. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to detect the leak, as SHELNUTT teaches in [0044] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHELNUTT as applied to claims 1-4, 9, 11-15, 18 and 20 above, in view of Ginsburg “Fluid-level sensing using 77-GHz millimeter wave” 2017 . Regarding claims 6 and 19, SHELNUTT does not explicitly further teach the leak detector comprises a millimeter wave-based leak detector. Ginsburg explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the leak detector comprises a millimeter wave-based leak detector (page 2 last 2 paragraph, page 5 left column, 77-GHz radar-on-chip fluid-level sensing for leak early detection). 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 SHELNUTT to incorporate the teachings of Ginsburg, because they all directed to fluid leaking detection, to make the device wherein the leak detector comprises the leak detector comprises a millimeter wave-based leak detector. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to detect the leak, as SHELNUTT teaches in [0044] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHELNUTT as applied to claims 1-4, 9, 11-15, 18 and 20 above, in view of Bailey US 5410255 A . Regarding claim 7, SHELNUTT does not explicitly further teach the leak detector comprises a time-domain reflectometry-based leak detector. Bailey explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the leak detector comprises a time-domain reflectometry-based leak detector (column 3 lines 5-6 time-domain reflectometry leak detector). 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 SHELNUTT to incorporate the teachings of Bailey, because they all directed to fluid leaking detection, to make the device wherein the leak detector comprises a time-domain reflectometry-based leak detector. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to detect the leak, as SHELNUTT teaches in [0044] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHELNUTT as applied to claims 1-4, 9, 11-15, 18 and 20 above, in view of Aljurbua “Detection and Localization of Pipeline Leaks Using 3-D Bistatic Subsurface Imaging Radars” 2022 . Regarding claim 8, SHELNUTT does not explicitly further teach the leak detector comprises a vector network analyzer-based leak detector. Aljurbua explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the leak detector comprises a vector network analyzer-based leak detector (Abstract leak detection using VNA). 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 SHELNUTT to incorporate the teachings of Aljurbua, because they all directed to fluid leaking detection, to make the device wherein the leak detector comprises a vector network analyzer-based leak detector. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to detect the leak, as SHELNUTT teaches in [0044] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHELNUTT as applied to claims 1-4, 9, 11-15, 18 and 20 above, in view of GAO US 20220408606 A1 . Regarding claim 10, SHELNUTT further teaches the at least one of the one or more hydraulic solenoid valves comprises a first hydraulic solenoid valve on a coolant inlet line of the device (Fig. 1 [0043] supply valve 126). SHELNUTT does not explicitly further teach a second hydraulic solenoid valve on a coolant outlet line of the device. GAO explicitly teaches in an analogous art that a second hydraulic solenoid valve on a coolant outlet line of the device (GAO: Figs. 2 & 3AB [0034] - [0037] inlet control valve 214 and outlet control valve 220). 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 SHELNUTT to incorporate the teachings of GAO, because they all directed to cooling system, to make the device wherein a second hydraulic solenoid valve on a coolant outlet line of the device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to have a separate control, as GAO teaches in [0037] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHELNUTT as applied to claims 1-4, 9, 11-15, 18 and 20 above, in view of MATSUO JP 2018125497 A . Regarding claim 10, SHELNUTT further teaches the condition of the device comprises a thermal load in the device enclosure (Fig. 1 [0041] – [0044] the heat-generating functional components 106), and wherein adjusting the state of the one or more hydraulic valves to effect the change in the coolant flow comprises adjusting the state of the one or more hydraulic solenoid valves to change a coolant flow rate based on the thermal load (Fig. 1 [00412 – [0044] the proportional valves 132 and 134 regulating the coolant flow rate based on measured temperatures i.e. “thermal load”). SHELNUTT does not explicitly further teach the hydraulic valves are solenoid vales. MATSUO explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the hydraulic valves are solenoid vales (page 9 paragraph 4 from the bottom, proportional solenoid valves). 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 SHELNUTT to incorporate the teachings of MATSUO, because they all directed to cooling system, to make the device wherein the hydraulic valves are solenoid vales. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to control the coolant flow rate, as SHELNUTT teaches in page 9 paragraph 4 from the bottom . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHELNUTT in view of MATSUO as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of EADELSON US 20220316764 A1 . Regarding claim 17, neither SHELNUTT nor MATSUO explicitly further teaches the liquid cooling management logic is further configured to compare the thermal load to a threshold, and adjusting the state of the one or more hydraulic solenoid valves to change the coolant flow rate based on the thermal load further comprises reducing the coolant flow rate in response to the thermal load being less than the threshold. EADELSON explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the liquid cooling management logic is further configured to compare the thermal load to a threshold, and adjusting the state of the one or more hydraulic solenoid valves to change the coolant flow rate based on the thermal load further comprises reducing the coolant flow rate in response to the thermal load being less than the threshold ([0053] close valve when the temperature of the cooling surface or object to be cooled falls below a temperature threshold). 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 SHELNUTT and MATSUO to incorporate the teachings of EADELSON, because they all directed to cooling system, to make the device wherein the liquid cooling management logic is further configured to compare the thermal load to a threshold, and adjusting the state of the one or more hydraulic solenoid valves to change the coolant flow rate based on the thermal load further comprises reducing the coolant flow rate in response to the thermal load being less than the threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to provide cost effective thermal regulation and management of the electronic devices, as EADELSON teaches in [0004] . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. SHELNUTT US 20170181327 A1 teaches control solenoid valves open position to control flow rate. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4 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 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. /M.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2115 /KAMINI S SHAH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/622,687 Page 2 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/622,687 Page 3 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/622,687 Page 4 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/622,687 Page 5 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/622,687 Page 6 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/622,687 Page 7 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/622,687 Page 8 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/622,687 Page 9 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/622,687 Page 10 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/622,687 Page 11 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/622,687 Page 12 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/622,687 Page 13 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/622,687 Page 14 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/622,687 Page 15 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/622,687 Page 16 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/622,687 Page 17 Art Unit: 2115 Application/Control Number: 18/622,687 Page 18 Art Unit: 2115
Prosecution Insights