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 Objections
Claims 2-5, 7-11, and 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 2, the word “and” in line 7 should be “or.”
As to claim 7, the word “and” in line 4 should be “or.”
As to claim 17, the word “and” in line 7 should be “or.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0125573 to Rubenstein et al. (hereafter Ruben)
As to claim 14, Ruben discloses a method for emergency cooling of a liquid-cooled system (FIG. 8), comprising: monitoring a primary cooling circuit ([0056], “During normal operation, a flow of chilled coolant 816 is provided to the housing 802 by way of the heat exchanger 806,” which implies monitoring to determine whether an operation is “normal” or “abnormal”) to identify an emergency situation of the primary cooling circuit; generating a control signal based on the identified emergency situation ([0056] “The diverting valve 812 receives a flow of warmed coolant 814 and selectively routes that coolant to either the heat exchanger 806 or the heat storage device 808 according to a user setting of the valve or a control signal.”); transitioning the system to an emergency operation mode ([0057]), by disconnecting a cooling assembly (802) thermally couplable to a heat source (802A), from the primary cooling circuit and connecting the cooling assembly to an emergency cooling unit (808, 810) including a Phase Change Material (PCM) (810) housed within a containment structure (808) in response to the control signal; and cooling a liquid (816), during emergency operation, by the PCM in the emergency cooling unit for a predefined period of time ([0031] “This time period is determinable through various factors including selection of the phase-change material, total mass of the phase-change material within the heat sink 202, heat flux from the components 214, etc.”). Ruben fails to disclose a cold plate assembly in FIG. 8. Ruben teaches a cold plate assembly (100, [0017]) in FIG. 1A. 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 embodiment of FIG. 8 with a cold plate assembly as taught in FIG. 1 as a means of transferring heat from heat generating components (802A) to the cooling liquid.
As to claim 15, modified Ruben discloses the method for emergency cooling of a liquid-cooled system of claim 14, wherein the predefined period of time is determined based on the thermal power loss of the heat source ([0031] “This time period is determinable though various factors including selection of the phase-change material, total mass of the phase-change material within the heat sink 202, heat flux from the components 214, etc.”).
Claim(s) 1, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0125573 to Rubenstein et al. (hereafter Ruben) in view of US 11,089,719 to Sun et al.
As to claim 1, Ruben discloses a liquid-cooled system (FIG. 8), comprising: a primary cooling circuit (802, 804, 812, 806), through which a cooling liquid (816) is circulated for heat removal; an emergency cooling unit (808, 810) comprising a Phase Change Material (PCM) (810) housed within a containment structure (808); and a distributor valve (812), mechanically linked to the primary cooling circuit and the emergency cooling unit, configured to selectively disconnect the cold plate assembly from the primary cooling circuit and to connect the cold plate assembly to the emergency cooling unit in response to a control signal ([0056]). Ruben fails to disclose in FIG. 8 a cold plate assembly. Ruben teaches a cold plate assembly (100, [0017]) in FIG. 1A. 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 embodiment of FIG. 8 with a cold plate assembly as taught in FIG. 1 as a means of transferring heat from heat generating components (802A) to the cooling liquid. Ruben also fails to disclose a pair of distributor valves. Sun teaches a pair of distributer valves (8, 11, FIG. 1) for engaging or disengaging an emergency cooling unit (1). 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 system of Rubin with a second valve at the outlet of the emergency cooling unit as taught by Sun in order to prevent back flow of fluid into the emergency cooling unit during normal operation of the system.
As to claim 16, Ruben discloses a liquid-cooled system (FIG. 8), comprising: a primary cooling circuit (802, 804, 812, 806) to circulate a cooling liquid (816) for heat removal; a cooling assembly (802) for being thermally couplable to a heat source for transferring heat from the heat source to the cooling liquid; an emergency cooling unit (808, 810) comprising a Phase Change Material (PCM) (808) housed within a containment structure (810); and a distributor valve (812) being mechanically linked to the primary cooling circuit and the emergency cooling unit, the distributor valve being configured to selectively disconnect the cold plate assembly from the primary cooling circuit and to connect the cold plate assembly to the emergency cooling unit in response to a control signal ([0056]). Ruben fails to disclose in FIG. 8 a cold plate assembly. Ruben teaches a cold plate assembly (100, [0017]) in FIG. 1A. 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 embodiment of FIG. 8 with a cold plate assembly as taught in FIG. 1 as a means of transferring heat from heat generating components (802A) to the cooling liquid. Ruben also fails to disclose a pair of distributor valves. Sun teaches a pair of distributer valves (8, 11, FIG. 1) for engaging or disengaging an emergency cooling unit (1). 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 system of Rubin with a second valve at the outlet of the emergency cooling unit as taught by Sun in order to prevent back flow of fluid into the emergency cooling unit during normal operation of the system.
As to claim 13, modified Ruben discloses the liquid-cooled system of claim 1, wherein the emergency cooling unit is sized based on a cooling capacity of the system during a predefined period of emergency operation ([0031] “This time period is determinable though various factors including selection of the phase-change material, total mass of the phase-change material within the heat sink 202, heat flux from the components 214, etc.”), wherein the primary cooling circuit is not connected to the cold plate assembly.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0125573 to Rubenstein et al. (hereafter Ruben) in view of US 11,089,719 to Sun et al. further in view of US 2021/0168970 to Chehade et at.
As to claim 2, Ruben in view of Sun discloses the liquid-cooled system of claim 1. Ruben further teaches further comprising generating a control signal for enabling emergency operation based on the identified emergency situation ([0056] teaches the use of a control signal to trigger valve 812, and [0057] teaches the valve is rerouted during times of excess heat load). Ruben fails to teach a control unit configured to: monitor at least one of the primary cooling circuit, the emergency cooling unit, and the heat source based on sensor data from sensors arranged at respective elements. Chehade teaches a control unit (710) configured to monitor an emergency cooling unit (242) based on sensor data from sensors (294) arranged at the emergency cooling unit ([0111]). 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 system of Ruben with a control unit and sensors as taught by Chehade in order to trigger the system in response to a temperature change of the emergency cooling unit. Ruben fails to teach, identify an emergency situation based on one or more of: a decrease of a pressure of the cooling liquid in the primary cooling circuit below a pressure threshold, a decrease of a flow rate of the cooling liquid in the primary cooling circuit below a flow rate threshold, and (or) an increase of a temperature of the cooling liquid in the primary cooling circuit over a temperature threshold. Ruben teaches that temperature of the coolant can be a trigger for an emergency function ([0027]). 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 use the temperature of the coolant as a trigger for the control signal as means of determining a failure in the system as taught by Ruben.
As to claim 3, modified Ruben discloses the liquid-cooled system of claim 2, further configured to operate in: a regular operation mode (812, 806), in which the cooling liquid is cooled by the primary cooling circuit and in which the distributor valves connect the cold plate assembly to the primary cooling circuit, and in which the distributor valves prevent cooling liquid from entering the emergency cooling unit; and an emergency operation mode (812, 808), in which the distributor valves disconnect the cold plate assembly from the primary cooling circuit, in response to the control signal, and connect the distributor valves to the emergency cooling unit allowing the cooling liquid to be cooled by the emergency cooling unit.
As to claim 4, modified Ruben discloses the liquid-cooled system of claim 3. Ruben fails to explicitly disclose wherein the control unit is further configured to enable the emergency operation mode for a predetermined amount of time of more than 10 minutes. However, 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 emergency system to operate for any desired amount of time as a choice of design depending on the needs of the system, for instance the amount of time needed to restore the fluid coolant system as disclosed by Ruben (see Abstract).
As to claim 5, modified Ruben discloses the liquid-cooled system of claim 4, wherein the predefined period of time is determined based on the thermal power loss of the heat source ([0031] “This time period is determinable though various factors including selection of the phase-change material, total mass of the phase-change material within the heat sink 202, heat flux from the components 214, etc.”).
As to claim 8, modified Ruben discloses the liquid-cooled system of claim 2, wherein the emergency cooling unit forms a local emergency cooling circuit with a cooling plate assembly (802, 812 808), and wherein a thermal energy is stored within the emergency cooling unit and not transferred to the primary cooling circuit (FIG. 8).
As to claim 10, modified Ruben discloses the liquid-cooled system of claim 2. Ruben fails to disclose wherein the control unit is further configured to receive data from a temperature sensor within the emergency cooling unit and to generate the control signal based on the data from the temperature sensor within the emergency cooling unit. Chehade teaches a control unit (710) configured to monitor an emergency cooling unit (242) based on sensor data from sensors (294) arranged in the emergency cooling unit ([0111]). 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 system of Ruben with a control unit and sensors as taught by Chehade in order to trigger the system in response to a temperature change of the emergency cooling unit.
As to claim 12, modified Ruben discloses the liquid-cooled system of claim 1. Ruben fails to disclose wherein the emergency cooling unit comprises a heat exchanger forming a plurality of cooling fins thermally coupled to the PCM. Chehade teaches an emergency cooling unit (Figure 3) comprising a heat exchanger (310) forming a plurality of cooling fins (316) coupled to a PCM (PCM). 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 emergency cooling unit of Ruben with the heat exchanger of Chehade to provide additional heat exchange to the emergency cooling unit as taught by Chehade ([0106]).
As to claim 17, modified Ruben discloses the liquid-cooled system of claim 16 further comprising generating a control signal for enabling emergency operation based on the identified emergency situation ([0056] teaches the use of a control signal to trigger valve 812, and [0057] teaches the valve is rerouted during times of excess heat load). Ruben fails to teach a control unit configured to: monitor at least one of the primary cooling circuit, the emergency cooling unit, and the heat source based on sensor data from sensors arranged at respective elements. Chehade teaches a control unit (710) configured to monitor an emergency cooling unit (242) based on sensor data from sensors (294) arranged at the emergency cooling unit ([0111]). 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 system of Ruben with a control unit and sensors as taught by Chehade in order to trigger the system in response to a temperature change of the emergency cooling unit. Ruben fails to teach identify an emergency situation based on one or more of: a decrease of a pressure of the cooling liquid in the primary cooling circuit below a pressure threshold, a decrease of a flow rate of the cooling liquid in the primary cooling circuit below a flow rate threshold, and an increase of a temperature of the cooling liquid in the primary cooling circuit over a temperature threshold. Ruben teaches that temperature of the coolant can be a trigger for an emergency function ([0027]). 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 use the temperature of the coolant as a trigger for the control signal as means of determining a failure in the system as taught by Ruben.
As to claim 18, modified Ruben discloses the liquid-cooled system of claim 17, further configured to operate in: a regular operation mode (812, 806), in which the cooling liquid is cooled by the primary cooling circuit and in which the distributor valves connect the cold plate assembly to the primary cooling circuit, and in which the distributor valves prevent cooling liquid from entering the emergency cooling unit; and an emergency operation mode (812, 808), in which the distributor valves disconnect the cold plate assembly from the primary cooling circuit, in response to the control signal, and connect the distributor valves to the emergency cooling unit allowing the cooling liquid to be cooled by the emergency cooling unit.
As to claim 19, modified Ruben discloses the liquid-cooled system of claim 18. Ruben fails to explicitly disclose wherein the control unit is further configured to enable the emergency operation mode for a predetermined amount of time of more than 10 minutes. However, 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 emergency system to operate for any desired amount of time as a choice of design depending on the needs of the system, for instance the amount of time needed to restore the fluid coolant system as disclosed by Ruben (see Abstract).
As to claim 20, modified Ruben discloses wherein the predefined period of time is determined based on the thermal power loss of the heat source ([0031] “This time period is determinable through various factors including selection of the phase-change material, total mass of the phase-change material within the heat sink 202, heat flux from the components 214, etc.”)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0125573 to Rubenstein et al. (hereafter Ruben) in view of US 11,089,719 to Sun et al. further in view of DE 102019218081 to Rakoczi et al.
As to claim 6, Ruben in view of Sun discloses the liquid-cooled system of claim 1. Ruben fails to disclose wherein the liquid-cooled system is positioned onboard a vehicle, wherein the heat source comprises electronic circuits of an automotive computing device. Rakoczi discloses a liquid cooled system onboard a vehicle (see “Technical Area” para 1), as well as heat sources (10.1, Fig. 3) of an automotive computing device, the system having an emergency redundancy cooling system (19). 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 utilize the system of Ruben for use in an automotive capacity as taught by Rakoczi for the purposes of having an emergency cooling mechanism reliant on a passive means (i.e. a PCM).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0125573 to Rubenstein et al. (hereafter Ruben) in view of US 11,089,719 to Sun et al. further in view of US 2021/0168970 to Chehade et at. and further in view of US 6,531,847 to Tsukamoto et al.
As to claim 7, Ruben in view of Sun and Chehade disclose the liquid-cooled system of claim 2. Ruben fails to disclose wherein the control unit is further configured to progressively transition between the primary cooling circuit and the emergency cooling unit based on one or more of a rate of change in the pressure of the cooling liquid in the primary cooling circuit, and (or) a decrease in cooling liquid flow rate of the primary cooling circuit. Tsukamoto teaches a control unit (136, FIG 5) configured to progressively transition between a primary circuit (104, battery circuit to load in normal conditions) and an emergency unit (150, for discharging excess energy in the case of emergency) based on a rate of change in the pressure of the battery (col. 6, ll. 15-18). 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 system of Chehade to transition from the primary cooling circuit to the emergency cooling unit based on the rate of change of the pressure of the cooling liquid in order to maintain a desired temperature of the system as taught by Tsukamoto (col. 6, ll. 12-15, “The safety control circuit 136 can vary the rate of drain from the battery to maintain safe temperatures of the battery and the energy drain device.”)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0125573 to Rubenstein et al. (hereafter Ruben) in view of US 11,089,719 to Sun et al. further in view of US 2021/0168970 to Chehade et at. and further in view of EP 4142443 to Chehade (hereafter Chehade 443).
As to claim 9, Ruben in view of Sun and Chehade disclose the liquid-cooled system of claim 2. Ruben fails to disclose wherein the control unit is configured to monitor the pressure within the primary cooling circuit based on data received from a pressure sensor and generate the control signal based on the data from the pressure sensor. Chehade 443 teaches a control unit (310) configured to monitor the pressure within a primary cooling circuit (150) based on data received from a pressure sensor (325) to generate a control signal (to control actuator 304, [0049] ll. 46-47) based on the data from the pressure sensor. 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 system of Ruben with a pressure sensor as in Chehade 443 in order to determine a pressure loss in the system and actuate an emergency function as taught by Chehade 443 ([0049])
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0125573 to Rubenstein et al. (hereafter Ruben) in view of US 11,089,719 to Sun et al. further in view of US 2021/0168970 to Chehade et at. and further in view of US 2004/0158428 to Byrd et al.
As to claim 11, Ruben in view of Sun and Chehade teach the liquid-cooled system of claim 2. Ruben fails to teach wherein the control unit is configured to communicate with a user interface to provide an alert regarding an emergency situation of the cooling system or receive a user input regarding an emergency situation of the primary cooling circuit. Byrd teaches a control unit (cooling system controller) configured to communicate with a user interface (see Abstract, “The cooling system controller includes a user-interface panel”) to provide an alert regarding an emergency situation of a cooling system (see Abstract, “System performance data, sensor readings and alarm condition indications are indicated on a user-interface panel…”). 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 system of Ruben with the user interface of Byrd in order to have a visual representation of the emergency state of the system as taught by Byrd.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2025/0120047 to Zhu disclosing an emergency coolant flow circuit with PCM.
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