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 .
Reply Under 37 CFR 1.111
The submission of the reply filed on 06/19/2026 to the non-final Office action of 03/19/2026 is acknowledged. The Office action on the currently pending claims 1-20 follows.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 Ln.5: the Office notes that Applicant made an error and forgot to include the strikethrough to indicate deletion in the clause “adjustadjusting fins included”. Therefore, the Office asks that the clause be amended to include the strikethrough so that the clause reads as “adjusting” to properly indicate the deletion.
The Office requests Applicant’s cooperation with reviewing the claims and correcting ALL remaining informalities present in the claims but not made of record above. Appropriate correction is required.
See next page→
Claim Interpretation
As outlined in the previous Office action, regarding the limitation “thermosiphon”, Applicant’s disclosure appears to use the term in such a way that the scope of “thermosiphon” includes a traditional heat pipe (i.e., a heat pipe with a wick) and wickless heat pipes. Based on paragraph [0027] of Applicant’s specification (see US-PG Pub version of Applicant’s specification), Applicant appears to use the word “thermosiphon” to mean any device that allows for passive thermal cooling, including a heat pipe. Paragraph [0027] explicitly says that the reservoir heat pipes are thermosiphons, and paragraph [0027] appears to teach and suggest that both wicked and wickless heat pipes can be thermosiphons. Furthermore, there appears to be nothing in Applicant’s disclosure that the structure of the thermosiphon (108) is different from that of the reservoir heat pipes (122). In fact, in light of paragraph [0027], there appears to be more evidence that the thermosiphon (108) can also be a heat pipe like the reservoir heat pipes (122), which are explicitly also referred to as thermosiphons. For the reasons provided above, the scope for the limitation “thermosiphon” was interpreted to include both wicked heat pipes (which traditionally are not called thermosiphons) and wickless heat pipes (which are more traditionally known as thermosiphons).
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 1-4 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roesner (US 20120134678) in view of Campbell (US 20140124164) and in further view of Mashiko (US 20110247348).
Regarding claim 1, Roesner discloses (Fig.1A):
A system comprising: an edge data center container including: computing equipment (106 and/or 108); and a heat exchanger (140) coupled to the computing equipment (106 and/or 108) via a thermosiphon (104) (Fig.1A: at least 104 is used to couple 106 and 108 to 140); a fluid reservoir (Fig.1: the coolant source that provides cooled liquid to 140 via 144 and receives heated coolant from 140 via 146 will define the "fluid reservoir").
However, Roesner does not disclose:
A fluid reservoir positioned underground below the edge data center container, wherein the fluid reservoir is configured for geothermal cooling by surrounding earth; and a pump configured to circulate cooling fluid between the fluid reservoir and the heat exchanger.
Campbell, however, teaches (Fig.11A):
A fluid reservoir (1000) positioned underground (See Fig.11A, [0062], and [0065]), wherein the fluid reservoir (100) is configured for geothermal cooling by surrounding earth (Fig.11A and [0065]: the condensing end 1022 of heat pipes 1020 are provided underground and allow the vapor to condense back to a liquid, which means that the surrounding earth is what cools 1022 via geothermal cooling).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Campbell to modify the device of Rosner such that the fluid reservoir is positioned underground below the edge data center container so that the fluid reservoir is configured for geothermal cooling by surrounding earth, as claimed, in order to provide a more energy efficient means of cooling the fluid reservoir since no external/supplemental equipment is no longer required to cool the fluid reservoir as taught by Campbell ([0051]).
However, the above combination still fails to teach:
A pump configured to circulate cooling fluid between the fluid reservoir and the heat exchanger
Mashiko however teaches (Fig.1):
A fluid reservoir (18) positioned underground below the edge data center container (3) ([0084]: "In order to protect the tank 19 from the external heat, it is preferable to bury the tank 19 in the ground"- 19 is underground, which means that it is beneath 3); and a pump ([0091]: the pump provided on C2 will define the "pump") configured to circulate cooling fluid ([0080]: the "cooling medium" will define the cooling fluid) between the fluid reservoir (18) and the heat exchanger (10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Mashiko to further modify the device of modified Roesner such that it includes a pump that circulates cooling fluid between the fluid reservoir and the heat exchanger, as claimed, in order to provide an efficient means of moving the cooling fluid between the reservoir and heat exchanger due to the use of the pump.
Regarding claim 17, Roesner discloses (Fig.1A):
An apparatus comprising: computing equipment (104 and/or 108); a thermosiphon (104) coupled to the computing equipment (104 and/or 108); and a heat exchanger (140) coupled to the computing equipment (104 and/or 108) via the thermosiphon (104) (Fig.1A: at least 104 is used to couple 106 and 108 to 140), wherein the heat exchanger (140) is configured to couple to a fluid reservoir (Fig.1: the coolant source that provides cooled liquid to 140 via 144 and receives heated coolant from 140 via 146 will define the "fluid reservoir").
However, Roesner does not disclose:
A fluid reservoir positioned underground and configured for geothermal cooling by surrounding earth, and wherein a pump circulates cooling fluid between the fluid reservoir and the heat exchanger.
Campbell, however, teaches (Fig.11A):
A fluid reservoir (1000) positioned underground (See Fig.11A, [0062], and [0065]) and configured for geothermal cooling by surrounding earth (Fig.11A and [0065]: the condensing end 1022 of heat pipes 1020 are provided underground and allow the vapor to condense back to a liquid, which means that the surrounding earth is what cools 1022 via geothermal cooling).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Campbell to modify the device of Roesner such that the fluid reservoir is positioned underground and configured for geothermal cooling by surrounding earth, as claimed, in order to provide a more energy efficient means of cooling the fluid reservoir since no external/supplemental equipment is no longer required to cool the fluid reservoir as taught by Campbell ([0051]).
However, the above combination still fails to teach:
Wherein a pump circulates cooling fluid between the fluid reservoir and the heat exchanger.
Mashiko however teaches (Fig.1):
Wherein a pump ([0091]: the pump provided on C2 will define the "pump") circulates cooling fluid ([0080]: the "cooling medium" will define the cooling fluid) between the fluid reservoir (18) and the heat exchanger (10) (Fig.1 and [0091]: the pump provided on C2 will circulate the cooling medium/cooling fluid between 18 and 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Mashiko to further modify the device of modified Roesner such that it includes a pump that circulates cooling fluid between the fluid reservoir and the heat exchanger, as claimed, in order to provide an efficient means of moving the cooling fluid between the reservoir and heat exchanger due to the use of the pump.
Regarding claim 2, Campbell further teaches:
One or more reservoir heat pipes (1020) positioned underground (See Fig.11A and [0065]) and partially within the fluid reservoir (1000) and configured to cool the cooling fluid (1005) within the fluid reservoir (1000) via the geothermal cooling (Fig.10A and [0063]: 1022 cools the vapor geothermally back into condensate 1024, and thus 1005 is geothermally cooled by 1020).
See next page→
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Campbell to further modify the device of modified Roesner such that it has one or more reservoir heat pipes that are positioned underground and partially within the fluid reservoir so that the one of more reservoir heat pipes are configured to cool the cooling fluid within the fluid reservoir via the geothermal cooling, as claimed, in order to achieve the more energy efficient cooling means as outlined in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Campbell further teaches:
Wherein each of the one or more reservoir heat pipes (1020) includes cooling fins (1100) positioned within (See Fig.11A) the fluid reservoir (1000).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Campbell to further modify the device of modified Roesner such that each of the one or more reservoir heat pipes includes cooling fins positioned within the fluid reservoir, as claimed, in order to further improve the heat dissipation means due to the fins providing improved heat extraction as taught by Campbell ([0065]).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Roesner further discloses:
A fluid return line (146) configured to direct the cooling fluid from the heat exchanger (140) back into the fluid reservoir (Fig.1: the coolant source that provides cooled liquid to 140 via 144 and receives heated coolant from 140 via 146 will define the "fluid reservoir") (See Fig.1: 146 is the line that goes back to the reservoir).
See next page→
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roesner (US 20120134678), Campbell (US 20140124164), and Mashiko (US 20110247348) as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of I (KR 20130011155).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, modified Roesner does not teach:
(Claim 5): One or more underground heat pipes coupled directly to the heat exchanger.
(Claim 19): Wherein the heat exchanger is directly coupled to one or more underground heat pipes.
I however teaches (Fig.1):
(Claim 5): One or more underground heat pipes (130) coupled directly to the heat exchanger (120) (Fig.1, [0022], and [0030]: 120 is directly connected to 130, and 130 has 130b which is buried underground).
(Claim 19): Wherein the heat exchanger (120) is directly coupled to one or more underground heat pipes (130) (Fig.1, [0022], and [0030]: 120 is directly connected to 130, and 130 has 130b which is buried underground).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of I to further modify the device of modified Roesner such that the it has one or more underground heat pipes that is directly coupled to the heat exchanger (and thus also provide a heat exchanger that is directly coupled to the one or more underground heat pipes), as respectively claimed in claims 5 and 19, in order to further improve the heat dissipation capabilities due to the use of the one or more underground heat pipes being directly coupled to the heat exchanger as taught by I ([0031]: the ground maintains constant temperature, and thus further ensures that the heat generating apparatus does not overheat) (i.e., there are now multiple means of removing heat from the heat exchanger).
Claims 6-9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roesner (US 20120134678), Campbell (US 20140124164), and Mashiko (US 20110247348) as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Lyon (US 20080186670).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, modified Roesner does not teach:
(Claim 6): Wherein the pump includes a pump controller configured to control an amount of cooling provided to the edge data center container, including performing one or more of: adjusting a pump speed of the pump, retracting one or more reservoir heat pipes from the fluid reservoir, adjusting fins included on the one or more reservoir heat pipes included in the fluid reservoir, and disconnecting or connecting one or more underground heat pipes to the heat exchanger.
(Claim 20): Wherein the pump includes a pump controller configured to adjust an amount of cooling provided to the computing equipment, including performing one or more of: adjusting a pump speed of the pump, retracting one or more reservoir heat pipes from the fluid reservoir, adjusting fins included on the one or more reservoir heat pipes included in the fluid reservoir, and disconnecting or connecting one or more underground heat pipes to the heat exchanger.
Lyon however teaches (Fig.1):
(Claim 6): Wherein the pump (14) includes a pump controller (22) configured to control an amount of cooling ([0022] and [0031]: 22 controls the amount of cooling by adjusting the speed of the pump), including performing one or more of: adjusting a pump speed of the pump ([0022] and [0031]: as explained above, 22 adjusts the amount of cooling by adjusting the speed of the pump), retracting one or more reservoir heat pipes from the fluid reservoir, adjusting fins included on the one or more reservoir heat pipes included in the fluid reservoir, and disconnecting or connecting one or more underground heat pipes to the heat exchanger.
(Claim 20): Wherein the pump (14) includes a pump controller (22) configured to adjust an amount of cooling ([0022] and [0031]: 22 adjusts the amount of cooling by adjusting the speed of the pump), including performing one or more of: adjusting a pump speed of the pump ([0022] and [0031]: as explained above, 22 adjusts the amount of cooling by adjusting the speed of the pump), retracting one or more reservoir heat pipes from the fluid reservoir, adjusting fins included on the one or more reservoir heat pipes included in the fluid reservoir, and disconnecting or connecting one or more underground heat pipes to the heat exchanger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Lyon to further modify the device of modified Roesner such that the pump includes a pump controller that controls/adjusts an amount of cooling provided to the edge data center/computing equipment, including performing one or more of: adjusting a pump speed of the pump, retracting one or more reservoir heat pipes from the fluid reservoir, adjusting fins included on the one or more reservoir heat pipes included in the fluid reservoir, and disconnecting or connecting one or more underground heat pipes to the heat exchanger, as respectively claimed in claims 6 and 20, in order to provide a more efficient cooling system as taught by Lyon ([0030]-[0031]: by providing the pump controller, a more efficient cooling system can be utilized since the speed of the pump can be automatically adjusted to achieve a desired cooling effect, and thus providing a more self-regulating cooling system).
Regarding claim 7, Lyon further teaches:
Wherein the pump controller (22) is configured to control the amount of cooling based on one or more of a current environment temperature (Fig.1, [0030]-[0031], and [0034]-[0035]: 22 can control the speed of the pump, and thus control the amount of cooling, based on the temperature read by the temperature sensor 20) and a predicted future environment temperature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Lyon to further modify the device of modified Roesner such that the pump controller is configured to control the amount of cooling provided to the edge data center container based on one or more of a current environment temperature and a predicted future environment temperature, as claimed, in order to achieve the more efficient cooling system as outlined in claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 8, Lyon further teaches:
Wherein the pump controller (22) is configured to control the amount of cooling based on one or more of a current workload (Fig.1, [0030]-[0031], and [0034]-[0035]: 20 can detect the temperature of the computer component, and thus indirectly measure the workload by measuring the thermal output of the computer component, which can then send the information to 22 which can then control the speed of the pump 14 to provide optimized cooling) and a predicted future workload.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Lyon to further modify the device of modified Roesner such that the pump controller is configured to control the amount of cooling provided to the edge data center container based on one or more of a current workload and a predicted future workload, as claimed, in order to achieve the more efficient cooling system as outlined in claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 9, Lyon further teaches:
Wherein the pump controller (22) is configured to control the amount of cooling based on one or more of a current error rate of the computing equipment ([0030]: “computer component”) and a predicted future error rate of the computing equipment ([0030]: “computer component”) (Fig.1, [0030]-[0031], and [0034]-[0035]: 20 can detect the temperature of the computing equipment, and thus indirectly detect the current error rate and/or predict a predicted future error rate by measuring the thermal output of the computer component, which can then send the information to 22 which can then control the speed of the pump 14 to provide optimized cooling).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Lyon to further modify the device of modified Roesner such that the pump controller is configured to control the amount of cooling provided to the edge data center container based on one or more of a current error rate of the computing equipment and a predicted future error rate of the computing equipment, as claimed, in order to achieve the more efficient cooling system as outlined in claim 6 above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roesner (US 20120134678), Campbell (US 20140124164), and Mashiko (US 20110247348) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chuang (US 20240064931).
Regarding claim 10, modified Roesner does not teach:
One or more additional pumps for redundancy.
Chuang however teaches (Fig.3B):
One or more additional pumps (305_12 and/or 305_22) for redundancy ([0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Chuang to further modify the device of modified Roesner such that it has one or more additional pumps for redundancy, as claimed, in order to further improve the cooling capabilities since the one or more additional pumps will provide a failsafe operation in the event that the main pump fails as taught by Chuang ([0026]).
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roesner (US 20120134678) in view of Campbell (US 20140124164) in further view of Mashiko (US 20110247348) and in further view of Lyon (US 20080186670).
Regarding claim 11, Roesner discloses (Fig.1A):
A method for cooling edge data center equipment, the method comprising: circulating a cooling fluid (Fig.1: the water that flow into and out of 140 via 144 and 146) between a fluid reservoir (Fig.1: the coolant source that provides cooled liquid to 140 via 144 and receives heated coolant from 140 via 146 will define the "fluid reservoir") and a heat exchanger (140) included in an edge data center container (110), wherein the heat exchanger (140) is thermally coupled to computing equipment (106 and/or 108) included in the edge data center container (110) via a thermosiphon (104).
However, Roesner does not disclose:
Circulating, via a pump, a cooling fluid between a fluid reservoir positioned underground and configured for geothermal cooling by surrounding earth, and a heat exchanger included in an edge data center container.
Campbell, however, teaches (Fig.11A):
A fluid reservoir (100) positioned underground (See Fig.11A, [0062], and [0065]) and configured for geothermal cooling by surrounding earth (Fig.11A and [0065]: the condensing end 1022 of heat pipes 1020 are provided underground and allow the vapor to condense back to a liquid, which means that the surrounding earth is what cools 1022 via geothermal cooling).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Campbell to modify the device of Roesner such that the fluid reservoir is positioned underground and configured for geothermal cooling by surrounding earth, as claimed, in order to provide a more energy efficient means of cooling the fluid reservoir since no external/supplemental equipment is no longer required to cool the fluid reservoir as taught by Campbell ([0051]).
However, the above combination still fails to teach:
Circulating, via a pump, a cooling fluid between a fluid reservoir positioned underground and configured for geothermal cooling by surrounding earth, and a heat exchanger included in an edge data center container.
Mashiko however teaches (Fig.1):
Circulating, via a pump ([0091]: the pump provided on C2 will define the "pump"), a cooling fluid ([0080]: the "cooling medium" will define the cooling fluid) between a fluid reservoir (18) and a heat exchanger (10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Mashiko to further modify the device of modified Roesner such that it has a pump that circulates the cooling fluid between the fluid reservoir that is positioned underground and configured for geothermal cooling by surrounding earth, and the heat exchanger included in the edge date center container, as claimed, in order to provide an efficient means of moving the cooling fluid between the fluid reservoir and heat exchanger (i.e., the pump will provide a simple and efficient means of actively pumping fluid between the two components).
However, the above combination still fails to teach:
Adjusting, by a pump controller included on the pump, an amount of cooling provided to the edge data center container based on a received instruction.
Lyon however teaches (Fig.1):
Adjusting, by a pump controller (22 and the receiver in 14 that receives instructions from 22 via 221a, in combination, will define the “pump controller”) included on the pump (14), an amount of cooling based on a received instruction (Fig.1, [0030]-[0031], and [0034]: based on the information received from 20, and thus defining a received instruction, 22 can adjust the speed and activity, and thus adjust the amount of cooling, of the pump 14 in order to provide the desired cooling effect).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Lyon to further modify the device of modified Roesner such that it includes a pump controller that is included on the pump, and arranged such that the pump controller adjusts an amount of cooling provided to the edge data center container based on a received instruction, as claimed, in order to provide a more efficient cooling system as taught by Lyon ([0030]-[0031]: by providing the pump controller, a more efficient cooling system can be utilized since the speed of the pump can be automatically adjusted to achieve a desired cooling effect, and thus providing a more self-regulating cooling system).
Regarding claim 12, Campbell further teaches:
Wherein the fluid reservoir (1000) includes one or more reservoir heat pipes (1020) positioned underground (See Fig.11A, [0062], and [0065]) and partially within the fluid reservoir (1000) and configured to cool the cooling fluid (1005) within the fluid reservoir (1000) via geothermal cooling (Fig.10A and [0063]: 1022 cools the vapor geothermally back into condensate 1024, and thus 1005 is geothermally cooled by 1020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Campbell to further modify the device of modified Roesner such that the fluid reservoir includes one or more reservoir heat pipes positioned underground and partially within the fluid reservoir to cool the cooling fluid within the fluid reservoir via geothermal cooling, as claimed, in order to achieve the more energy efficient cooling means as outlined in claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 13, Lyon further teaches:
Wherein adjusting the amount of cooling (Fig.1, [0030]-[0031], and [0031]: as described in claim 11 above, the amount of cooling is adjusted by adjusting the pump speed) includes performing one or more of: adjusting a pump speed of the pump (Fig.1, [0030]-[0031], and [0034]: based on the information received from 20, 22 can adjust the speed, and thus adjust the amount of cooling, of the pump 14 in order to provide the desired cooling effect), retracting one or more reservoir heat pipes from the fluid reservoir, adjusting fins included on the one or more reservoir heat pipes included in the fluid reservoir, and disconnecting or connecting one or more underground heat pipes to the heat exchanger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Lyon to further modify the device of modified Roesner such that adjusting the amount of cooling provided to the edge data center container includes performing one or more of: adjusting a pump speed of the pump, retracting one or more reservoir heat pipes from the fluid reservoir, adjusting fins included on the one or more reservoir heat pipes included in the fluid reservoir, and disconnecting or connecting one or more underground heat pipes to the heat exchanger, as claimed, in order to achieve the more efficient cooling system as outlined in claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 14, Lyon further teaches:
Wherein adjusting the amount of cooling is based on one or more of a current environment temperature (Fig.1, [0030]-[0031], and [0034]: 22 can control the speed of the pump, and thus control the amount of cooling, based on the temperature read by the temperature sensor 20) and a predicted future environment temperature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Lyon to further modify the device of modified Roesner such that the adjusting the amount of cooling provided to the edge data center container is based on one or more of a current environment temperature and a predicted future environment temperature, as claimed, in order to achieve the more efficient cooling system as outlined in claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 15, Lyon further teaches:
Wherein adjusting the amount of cooling is based on one or more of a current workload (Fig.1, [0030]-[0031], and [0034]: 20 can detect the temperature of the computer component, and thus indirectly measure the workload by measuring the thermal output of the computer component, which can then send the information to 22 which can then control the speed of the pump 14 to provide optimized cooling) and a predicted future workload.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Lyon to further modify the device of modified Roesner such that adjusting the amount of cooling provided to the edge data center container is based on one or more of a current workload and a predicted future workload, as claimed, in order to achieve the more efficient cooling system as outlined in claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 16, Lyon further teaches:
Wherein adjusting the amount of cooling is based on one or more of a current error rate of the computing equipment ([0030]: “computer component”) and a predicted future error rate of the computing equipment ([0030]: “computer component”) (Fig.1, [0030]-[0031], and [0034]: 20 can detect the temperature of the computing equipment, and thus indirectly detect the current error rate and/or predict a predicted future error rate by measuring the thermal output of the computer component, which can then send the information to 22 which can then control the speed of the pump 14 to provide optimized cooling).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Lyon to further modify the device of modified Roesner such that adjusting the amount of cooling provided to the edge data center container is based on one or more of a current error rate of the computing equipment and a predicted future error rate of the computing equipment, as claimed, in order to achieve the more efficient cooling system as outlined in claim 11 above.
See next page→
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 06/19/2026 have been fully considered but have been found unpersuasive. Regarding the rejection made to independent claim 1, Applicant contests that none of the prior art references, taken alone or in combination, reasonably teaches and/or suggests “a fluid reservoir positioned underground below the edge data center container, wherein the fluid reservoir is configured for geothermal cooling by surrounding earth” as now recited in amended independent claim 1. Specifically regarding Mashiko, Applicant contests that the reference does not teach and/or suggestion “the fluid reservoir is configured for geothermal cooling by surrounding earth” let alone “the fluid reservoir is configured for geothermal cooling” because the “cooling medium in Mashiko’s tank is cooled, not by the surrounding earth, but by heat pipes 20, the condensing portions of which are exposed to the external air and radiate heat to the atmosphere through fins” and that Mashiko’s buried tank is therefore configured to be insulated from the surrounding earth“.
The Office has fully considered the above argument but respectfully disagrees. While it is true that the majority of the heat will be dissipated by the heat pipes of Mashiko, the Office also notes that the tank of Mashiko will still be “configured for geothermal cooling” since there will be some degree of heat that will be transferred from the tank of Mashiko to the surrounding earth. In other words, there will have to be some degree of thermal exchange between the tank of Mashiko and the surrounding earth, and thus allowing the tank to be cooled geothermally, since there is no teaching and/or suggestion that the tank is completely sealed from the outside environment. Even though paragraph [0084] of Mashiko states that the tank is “insulating from the external heat”, Mashiko only teaches that outside heat does not affect the tank of Mashiko and not that the tank of Mashiko is not able to conduct heat to the surrounding earth (i.e., paragraph [0084] only provides a teaching that the tank is built to not absorb external heat, not that the tank is unable to radiate heat to the surrounding earth). Furthermore, due to the surrounding earth typically having a lower temperature than that of the reservoir that holds the heated coolant, and since the claim only requires the tank to have the capability to be cooled geothermally, the Office asserts that a small portion of the tank of Mashiko will have to fundamentally be cooled by the surrounding earth. The Office also notes that the claim does not require a majority of the heat absorbed by the fluid reservoir to be cooled geothermally. Referring to the claim, the claim only requires geothermic cooling to provide some degree of cooling for the fluid reservoir via the surrounding earth (i.e., the claim is open to both a majority and a minority of the heat accumulated by the fluid reservoir to be cooled geothermally and thus providing a broad claim scope). Therefore, even though it is likely that only a small portion of the heat accumulated by the reservoir of Mashiko is cooled geothermically, the teaching of Mashiko will still be able to teach and suggest the aforementioned claim limitation and thus rendering the previous rejection proper. For all of the reasons outlined above, Applicant’s argument that the Mashiko does not teach a fluid reservoir that is cooled geothermally and that the combination of Roesner and Mashiko would teach away from the teachings of Mashiko (i.e., as outlined above, the combination if Roesner and Mashiko would still be consistent with the teaching of Mashiko because Mashiko clearly teaches and/or suggests a fluid reservoir that is at least partially cooled geothermically via surrounding earth) is believed to be in error. However, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the Office has updated the rejection to more clearly reinforce that the concept of geothermally cooling a fluid reservoir via surrounding earth is a concept that is already known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding the Campbell reference, Applicant contests that no combination of Roesner, Mashiko, and Campbell can render the claimed device of independent claim 1 unpatentable because there is no reason for combination and because “Campbell is not relied upon for, and does not supply, a fluid reservoir that is itself positioned underground below the edge data center container and configured for geothermal cooling by surrounding earth”.
The Office has fully considered the above argument, but respectfully disagrees. As outlined in the rejection above, Campbell explicitly teaches a fluid reservoir that is positioned entirely underground so that the fluid reservoir is cooled geothermally by surrounding earth. Therefore, the combination of Roesner and Campbell could reasonably arrive at a device in which a fluid reservoir is positioned underground below the edge data center (i.e., even though the references in isolation do not teach the concept, the combination of references would arrive at the claimed structure) and thus rendering the claimed structure unpatentable over the prior art references.
The Office additionally notes that Applicant’s argument that “a rationale premised on visual appearance does not provide the requisite rational underpinning to support the proposed combination” is not believed to be persuasive because the argument is conclusory. Applicant has provided no explanation as to why visual appearance cannot provide a reason for combination and simply concludes that aesthetics cannot be a reason for combination, which is inaccurate. As outlined in MPEP 2144, aesthetic design changes can be a valid reason for motivation. Furthermore, as outlined in the previous Office action, the aesthetic design change also provides a functional benefit of better protecting the heat pipes from external damage since the heat pipes are no longer exposed to the ambient environment. Therefore, in addition to the more visually pleasant design, the construction also has a functional benefit that was explicitly outlined in the previous Office action. For all of the reasons outlined above, Applicant’s argument is believed to be in error. However, as outlined above, the Office has updated the rejection for the purposes of compact prosecution in hopes to more productively advance prosecution.
Regarding amended independent claims 11 and 17, the Office contests that the rejection above is believed to be proper for at least the reasons outlined above. For all of the reasons outlined above, Roesner, Campbell, and Mashiko are still believed to be pertinent prior art references and maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 116916608: teaches a liquid reservoir that is placed underground and cooled geothermally.
CN 113438879: teaches a liquid reservoir that is placed underground and cooled geothermally.
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 STEPHEN S SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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 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.
/STEPHEN S SUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights