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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/14/2025 was filed on or after the mailing date of the Application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract includes phrases which can be implied, such as “Embodiments of the present disclosure provide…”. The phrase does not aid in understanding the invention and said phrasing is expressly discouraged in order to clearly and concisely describe the invention. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 10, 12 and 13-19 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.
Regarding Claim 10, the recitation of “...wherein a maximum depth of the rear-door cooling unit in a direction parallel to the second axis is between about 200 mm and about 250 mm,” renders the claim unclear. The terms “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear as to what magnitude of relative movement would not meet the limitations of “about 200 mm and about 250 mm”, therefore making it unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art as to when infringement would occur. Accordingly, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the lateral axis" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 13, the recitation of “...a lateral axis being defined between the first lateral surface and the second lateral surface…,” and “…the fan rotation axis being perpendicular to the lateral axis…,” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, the claim language does not appear to corroborate with the specification based on the implied structure. For example, in the claim, the first lateral portion is taken as the front portion (left side of D1 in Fig. 5 of the application), the second lateral portion is taken as the rear portion of the rack (right side of D1 in Fig. 5). Therefore, when describing that the axis is “defined between” said surfaces, this implies to the examiner that the axis line would be drawn from one surface to another, thereby providing the lateral axis perpendicular to the lateral surfaces (left to right in Fig. 5). This understanding contradicts the later portion of the claim, describing the fan rotation being perpendicular to said axis, as the understanding derived from the claim language may describe these axis as being parallel. Accordingly, this discrepancy makes the claim difficult to interpret and does not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision as outlined in MPEP 2173.02.II. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and all claims depending therefrom are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation of the lateral axis is going to be interpreted as presented in the specification ¶ 0042, as being parallel to axis B, however the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not necessarily dictate this understanding. Any deficiency in the prior art rejection should not be construed as indication of allowable matter, rather a testament to the uncertainty of the claims.
Regarding Claim 17, the recitation of “...wherein a maximum depth of the rear-door cooling unit is between about 200 mm and about 250 mm,” renders the claim unclear. The terms “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear as to what magnitude of relative movement would not meet the limitations of “about 200 mm and about 250 mm”, therefore making it unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art as to when infringement would occur. Accordingly, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 20190182987 A1, hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen teaches a cooling system for electrical equipment [Figs. 1-8] comprising:
a rack [at least 1];
a rear-door cooling unit [at least 11] mounted to the rack [¶ 0052], the rear-door cooling unit being pivotable about a first axis between an open position and a closed position [¶ 0071-0072; Fig. 8; joining parts 311 connect the rack cabinet to the rack door, wherein doors commonsensically pivot about their hinges (311)] and defining a first side proximate the rack [Fig. 2; the side closest to the cabinet 2 may be the first side], and a second side opposite the first side [Fig. 1; the opposite side of 1 from the cabinet may be the second side];
a liquid-to-air heat exchanger [13] mounted within the rear-door cooling unit [¶ 0053-0054; Fig. 3; heat dissipation device 13, disposed within casing 131, receives fluid from pipe 132 as well as airflow from fans 121];
a fan [121], a controller [123], and a power supply unit [not shown] [¶ 0063; fan module 12, comprising circuit board 123, may be directly or indirectly connected to a power source; in the context of the prior art, “directly” is interpreted as being provided directly with the fan module, whereas “indirectly” is interpreted as the power source being provided elsewhere besides the fan module], each of the fan, the controller, and the power supply unit mounted to the rear-door cooling at the second side [¶ 0063; fan module 12 comprises the claimed components], and accessible from the second side when the rear-door cooling unit is in the closed position [Figs. 1, 4, 6-7; ¶ 0051-0052; fan module is disposed within accommodation space 115, wherein it is apparent from inspection that the fans are in a detachable array with handles for said modules being disposed on the second side, such that the door may be in the closed position and providing access to the second side] [also see ¶ 0062-0066, 0074].
Regarding Claim 2, Chen teaches the cooling system of claim 1 above and Chen teaches wherein each of the fan, the controller, and the power supply unit are configured for tool less removal [¶ 0059-0061, 0063-0064; Fig. 4; the fan 121, controller 123, and power supply are disposed in each fan module 12, wherein the fan module may be insertable to the door frame assembly 11 via assembly parts 1222 and 118, wherein the assembly parts may be described as bulges and guiding grooves, wherein the couples may be described in the prior art as a buckling manner] [Alternatively, Chen does not explicitly describe the use of any tools, thus the assembly may commonsensically be considered tool less].
Regarding Claim 3, Chen teaches the cooling system of claim 1 above and Chen teaches wherein each of the fan, the controller, and the power supply unit includes a blind mate connector [at least 1231 or 1211] that engages a corresponding blind mate connector of the rear-door cooling unit [¶ 0063-0064; Fig. 5; each fan module 12 comprises a connecting part 1231 corresponding to the fan’s electrical connections for power and operation, further configured to connect to the counterpart 1211 of the fan].
Regarding Claim 4, Chen teaches the cooling system of claim 1 above and Chen teaches wherein the rear-door cooling unit includes a hinge [at least 311] at a first lateral side [left side of Fig. 8] of the rear-door cooling unit, the hinge at least partially defining the first axis [Figs. 7-8; ¶ 0071-0072; apparent from inspection 311 joins the cabinet and the door in a hinging manner].
Regarding Claim 7, Chen teaches the cooling system of claim 1 above and Chen teaches wherein the power supply unit is one of a plurality of power supply units [¶ 0063; Fig. 4; each fan module 12 is provided with a direct power source, therefore each fan module 12 necessarily comprises its own direct power source].
Regarding Claim 8, Chen teaches the cooling system of claim 1 above and Chen teaches the fan is one of a plurality of fans, each of the plurality of fans mounted to the rear-door cooling unit at the second side [Fig. 1; ¶ 0051-0053, 0074; apparent from inspection, rack door 1 comprises a plurality of fans 121 disposed in an array, such that maintenance may be performed on a specific part from the outside (second side)].
Regarding Claim 9, Chen teaches the cooling system of claim 1 above and Chen teaches each of the fan, the controller, and the power supply unit are hot swappable [¶ 0064; maintenance can be performed on the fan modules in a hot-swappable manner].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Eckberg et al. (US 20130265719 A1, hereinafter “Eckberg”).
Regarding Claim 5, Chen teaches the cooling system of claim 4 above and Chen teaches wherein the liquid-to-air heat exchanger includes a supply header and a return header [132] [Figs. 2-3; ¶ 0054; fluid pipe 132 is disposed to terminate both above and below the heat dissipation device 13 (upper and lower 132), such as to convey liquid through said heat dissipation device].
While Chen generally teaches a fluid piping system [4] [Fig. 8; ¶ 0074], Chen does not explicitly teach wherein each of the supply header and the return header are positioned at a second lateral side of the rear-door cooling unit, opposite the first lateral side, each of the supply header and the return header including a quick disconnect fitting.
However, Eckberg teaches a heat exchanger door [510] for an electronics rack [500] [Figs. 5-6 and 10-12], wherein the door comprises an air-to-coolant heat exchanger [520] [¶ 0054], configured to receive and transfer fluid through inlet and outlet manifolds [600, 610] having quick connect couplings [601, 611] [See Fig. 6]. Upon inspection of Figs. 5B and 12B, the door comprises a hinged connection [530] on a relative right side of the outside of the door (first lateral side), while the headers 600 and 610 are disposed on the opposite lateral side of the door (relative left side of the outside of the door; second lateral side) [¶ 0055, 0077]. Eckberg further emphasizes that this structural configuration (providing fluid headers at an opposite end of the door from the hinged connection) provides room for and enables a door support beam to be integrated so as to support both the door itself and the heat exchanger connection, thereby providing the advantage of improved structural support from any load resulting in hinged opening or closing of the door, thereby improving the system [¶ 0077]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied a known technique to a known device (i.e. providing fluid headers at an opposite end of the door from the hinged connection) and that in combination, the technique would improve the known device in a similar manner, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. to provide room for and enable a door support beam to be integrated so as to support both the door itself and the heat exchanger connection, thereby providing the advantage of improved structural support from any load resulting in hinged opening or closing of the door, thereby improving the system [¶ 0077].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Chen to have wherein each of the supply header and the return header are positioned at a second lateral side of the rear-door cooling unit, opposite the first lateral side, each of the supply header and the return header including a quick disconnect fitting, in view of the teachings of Eckberg, where applying a known technique to a known device with no change in their respective function would improve the known device in a similar manner and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. to provide room for and enable a door support beam to be integrated so as to support both the door itself and the heat exchanger connection, thereby providing the advantage of improved structural support from any load resulting in hinged opening or closing of the door, thereby improving the system.
Regarding Claim 6, Chen, as modified, teaches the cooling system of claim 5 above and Chen teaches wherein the rear-door cooling unit includes apertures configured to receive hosing in a bottom feed configuration [Fig. 8; ¶ 0074; fluid piping system apparently comprises connections at the relative bottom of the piping 4] [Alternative, Eckberg Fig. 6 shows headers 600 and 610 at the bottom of the assembly].
Regarding Claim 10, Chen teaches the cooling system of claim 1 above, and while Chen necessarily teaches wherein a second axis extends through the first side and the second side [this is understood to intend as the depth direction of the rack], but Chen does not explicitly teach wherein a maximum depth of the rear-door cooling unit in a direction parallel to the second axis is between about 200 mm and about 250 mm.
However, Eckberg teaches a heat exchanger door [510] for an electronics rack [500] [Figs. 5-6 and 10-12], wherein the door comprises an air-to-coolant heat exchanger [520] [¶ 0054], configured to receive and transfer fluid through inlet and outlet manifolds [600, 610] having quick connect couplings [601, 611] [See Fig. 6]. Eckberg further generally teaches various proposed modifications to a heat exchanger door, such as changing the thickness or weight of the door, leading to the known design considerations such as minimizing operating expenses (i.e. pumping costs proportional to conduit length) and manufacturing costs (proportional to amount of material used in design), as well as affecting uniform flow across the paths [¶ 0046]. Thus, the depth of the rear-door cooling unit is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is a heat exchanger door with reduced operating and manufacturing costs.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein a maximum depth of the rear-door cooling unit in a direction parallel to the second axis is between about 200 mm and about 250 mm, in order to achieve a door heat exchanger with cheaper operating and manufacturing costs.
Claims 11, 13-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20240196561 A1, hereinafter “Liu”) and Johnson et al. (US 20090308579 A1, hereinafter “Johnson”).
Regarding Claim 11, Chen teaches the cooling system of claim 1 above and Chen teaches wherein a lateral axis is defined between opposing lateral sides of the rear-door cooling unit [the lateral axis is understood as an axis running approximately left to right in Fig. 1], however Chen does not teach wherein the controller is configured for removal from the rear-door cooling unit in a direction parallel to the lateral axis.
However, Liu teaches an electronic cooling device [200] comprising a panel unit [40] [Figs. 1-2] wherein the panel unit comprises at least a chassis panel [41] and a control panel [42] [¶ 0037] [Fig. 5]. Liu teaches that the control panel may be a slidably inserted into the chassis panel, such that the control panel may therefore be located away from the device cooling fluid, containing higher temperature fluid, thereby protecting the control panel from the higher temperature fluids [¶ 0060-0062]. Liu further discusses the known nature of changing the size of the control panel for a compact design to reduce design and transport costs [¶ 0063]. Lastly, Liu teaches that the disclosed structure of the sliding chassis is not critical, and other slidable structure configurations may be implemented (i.e. different sliding direction) [¶ 0066-0067]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined removable control panel as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the removable control panel would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing the control panel to be a slidably inserted into the system provides a means for the control panel to therefore be located elsewhere in the system, away from the device cooling fluid, containing higher temperature fluid, thereby protecting the control panel from the higher temperature fluids [¶ 0060-0062].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Chen to have wherein the controller is configured for removal from the rear-door cooling unit, in view of the teachings of Liu, where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing the control panel to be a slidably inserted into the system provides a means for the control panel to therefore be located elsewhere in the system, away from the device cooling fluid, containing higher temperature fluid, thereby protecting the control panel from the higher temperature fluids.
However, the combination of Chen and Liu does not explicitly teach the direction parallel to the lateral axis for the configured controller removal.
In combination with the teachings of Liu above, Johnson additionally teaches an exhaust air removal system [Figs. 1-11] comprising a plurality of vertically stacked rack-mounted equipment [125] configured to receive a cooled airflow via a plurality of fans [18] disposed at an end of an enclosure [100] [¶ 0053-0055, 0060]. Johnson further teaches a remote programmable controller [325] configured to transmit control signals to the system [¶ 0100]. Johnson further teaches that the controller may be contained in a variety of places, such as inside the rack, contained in the enclosure [100], located remotely from the fan unit [10], outside the equipment room or data center, or separate from other controllers [¶ 0101, 0109]. Therefore, because Johnson teaches multiple known locations of the controller, one of ordinary skill in the art may conclude that the location of the controller does not significantly modify the operation of the device, and may therefore be considered an obvious rearrangement of parts [MPEP 2144.04 VI.C]. When considering the above teachings from Liu and Johnson regarding the location of the controller being arbitrary [Johnson ¶ 0101, 0109], and the general disclosure of modified sliding removal structures [Liu ¶ 0060-0067], if the location of the controller on or around the enclosure is arbitrary and does not impact the operation of the device, then the manner of removing said device (i.e. on a lateral or longitudinal axis) necessarily also does not impact the manner of operating the device [MPEP 2144.04 VI.C], and Liu already teaches above that changes in size to the control panel may be obvious if they arrive at a more compact structure for reduced production costs, therefore providing some expectation of success to arrive at an improved functional device cooling apparatus with a removable control panel in a lateral direction.
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Chen to have wherein the controller is configured for removal from the rear-door cooling unit in a direction parallel to the lateral axis, in view of the teachings of Liu and Johnson, where the controller could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. the manner of removing said device (i.e. on a lateral or longitudinal axis) necessarily also does not impact the manner of operating the device [MPEP 2144.04 VI.C], and changes in size to the control panel may be obvious if they arrive at a more compact structure for reduced production costs, therefore providing some expectation of success to arrive at an improved functional device cooling apparatus with a removable control panel in a lateral direction.
Regarding Claim 13, Chen teaches a cooling system [Figs. 1-8] comprising:
a rear-door cooling unit [at least 11] including:
a first lateral portion including a first lateral surface [at least the handle-facing direction of the fans in Fig. 1; ¶ 0052-0055];
a second lateral portion opposite the first lateral portion, the second lateral portion including a second lateral surface [at least the opposite facing portion to Fig. 1, shown in Fig. 2], the second lateral surface being parallel to the first lateral surface [Figs. 1-2; apparent from inspection rack door 1 is rectangular]; and a lateral axis being defined between the first lateral surface and the second lateral surface [See 112(b) rejection above, the lateral axis is interpreted in light of the specification, not the claim language, as the claim language appears contradictory to the disclosure] [the lateral axis is taken as the left-right direction of Fig. 1 in Chen];
a heat exchanger [13] including a supply port and a return port [Fig. 2; ¶ 0054; fluid pipes are provided above and below the heat exchanger for conveying fluid], both of the supply port and the return port positioned within the second lateral portion [Fig. 2; apparent from inspection the pipes are disposed on the rear side (second lateral portion)];
a fan assembly [12] defining a fan rotation axis, the fan rotation axis being perpendicular to the lateral axis [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection];
a removable controller [123] insertable into the rear-door cooling system [¶ 0061 -0064; circuit board 123 is disposed within fan module 12, wherein 12 is insertable into door frame assembly 11] in an insertion direction that is parallel to the lateral axis; and
a first power supply unit [not shown] insertable into the rear-door cooling unit [¶ 0063; fan module 12, comprising circuit board 123, may be directly or indirectly connected to a power source; in the context of the prior art, “directly” is interpreted as being provided directly with the fan module, whereas “indirectly” is interpreted as the power source being provided elsewhere besides the fan module] in a direction that is parallel to the lateral axis.
Chen does not teach the removable controller being insertable in an insertion direction that is parallel to the lateral axis, and the first power supply unit being insertable in a direction that is parallel to the lateral axis.
However, Liu teaches an electronic cooling device [200] comprising a panel unit [40] [Figs. 1-2] wherein the panel unit comprises at least a chassis panel [41] and a control panel [42] [¶ 0037] [Fig. 5]. Liu teaches that the control panel may be a slidably inserted into the chassis panel, such that the control panel may therefore be located away from the device cooling fluid, containing higher temperature fluid, thereby protecting the control panel from the higher temperature fluids [¶ 0060-0062]. Liu further discusses the known nature of changing the size of the control panel for a compact design to reduce design and transport costs [¶ 0063]. Lastly, Liu teaches that the disclosed structure of the sliding chassis is not critical, and other slidable structure configurations may be implemented (i.e. different sliding direction) [¶ 0066-0067]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the insertable control panel as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the insertable control panel would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing the control panel to be a slidably inserted into the system provides a means for the control panel to therefore be located elsewhere in the system, away from the device cooling fluid, containing higher temperature fluid, thereby protecting the control panel from the higher temperature fluids [¶ 0060-0062].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Chen to have wherein the controller is configured for insertion to the rear-door cooling unit, in view of the teachings of Liu, where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing the control panel to be a slidably inserted into the system provides a means for the control panel to therefore be located elsewhere in the system, away from the device cooling fluid, containing higher temperature fluid, thereby protecting the control panel from the higher temperature fluids.
However, the combination of Chen and Liu does not explicitly teach the insertion direction being parallel to the lateral axis for the configured controller, or the first power supply unit being insertable in a direction that is parallel to the lateral axis.
In combination with the teachings of Liu above, Johnson additionally teaches an exhaust air removal system [Figs. 1-11] comprising a plurality of vertically stacked rack-mounted equipment [125] configured to receive a cooled airflow via a plurality of fans [18] disposed at an end of an enclosure [100] [¶ 0053-0055, 0060]. Johnson further teaches a remote programmable controller [325] configured to transmit control signals to the system [¶ 0100]. Johnson further teaches that the controller may be contained in a variety of places, such as inside the rack, contained in the enclosure [100], located remotely from the fan unit [10], outside the equipment room or data center, or separate from other controllers [¶ 0101, 0109]. Therefore, because Johnson teaches multiple known locations of the controller, one of ordinary skill in the art may conclude that the location of the controller does not significantly modify the operation of the device, and may therefore be considered an obvious rearrangement of parts [MPEP 2144.04 VI.C]. When considering the above teachings from Liu and Johnson regarding the location of the controller being arbitrary [Johnson ¶ 0101, 0109], and the general disclosure of modified sliding removal structures [Liu ¶ 0060-0067], if the location of the controller on or around the enclosure is arbitrary and does not impact the operation of the device, then the manner of removing said device (i.e. on a lateral or longitudinal axis) necessarily also does not impact the manner of operating the device [MPEP 2144.04 VI.C], and Liu already teaches above that changes in size to the control panel may be obvious if they arrive at a more compact structure for reduced production costs, therefore providing some expectation of success to arrive at an improved functional device cooling apparatus with a removable control panel in a lateral direction.
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Chen to have the removable controller being insertable in an insertion direction that is parallel to the lateral axis, in view of the teachings of Liu and Johnson, where the controller could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. the manner of removing said device (i.e. on a lateral or longitudinal axis) necessarily also does not impact the manner of operating the device [MPEP 2144.04 VI.C], and changes in size to the control panel may be obvious if they arrive at a more compact structure for reduced production costs, therefore providing some expectation of success to arrive at an improved functional device cooling apparatus with a removable control panel in a lateral direction.
Johnson lastly teaches wherein a fan unit [10] [Figs. 7-8] may comprise of power ports [102, 104] disposed at the bottom the unit, wherein the plurality of ports provide electrical redundancy via connection to separate power sources [¶ 0093-0094]. While Johnsons presents the power ports as being on a bottom edge of the unit (i.e. connections removable perpendicular to a lateral axis), an ordinary 90 degree turn of the ports within circuitry [112] at the bottom of Fig. 7 would provide the power ports to be removable in a lateral direction. Johnson teaches that the ports merely provide electrical connection in a circuit [¶ 0093-0095], and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a modification of their orientation would not significantly impact the manner in which the device operates, and may therefore be considered an obvious matter of design choice regarding a rearrangement of parts [MPEPE 2144.04 VI.C].
Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. to position power connections to be removable on a lateral (x) axis, or on a longitudinal (y) axis, or on a directional (z) axis, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. to arrive at a functional air exhaust system for cooling rack equipment, with appropriate power connections, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Chen by providing the first power supply unit being insertable in a direction that is parallel to the lateral axis, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding Claim 14, Chen, as modified, teaches the cooling system of claim 13 above and Chen teaches wherein the rear-door cooling unit defines an internal portion [at least area contained by 1 in Fig. 1] an external portion opposite the internal portion [at least 2 in Fig. 1] [¶ 0051], wherein each of the fan assembly, the removable controller, and the power supply unit is mounted at the external portion [Fig. 4; ¶ 0052-0053; fan module 12 contains the fans, controller and power supply, wherein the module 12 may be removable from the door frame assembly 11 via at least 118 and 1222 [¶ 0059].
Regarding Claim 15, Chen, as modified, teaches the cooling system of claim 14 above and Chen further teaches comprising a rack [1], wherein the rear-door cooling unit is mounted to the rack [Figs. 1-4; apparent from inspection], with the internal portion facing the rack, and the external portion facing away from the rack [Fig. 1; ¶ 0051; rack cabinet 2 is facing the back side of rack 1].
Regarding Claim 16, Chen, as modified, teaches the cooling system of claim 15 above and Chen teaches wherein the rear-door cooling unit is configured to rotate relative to the rack between an open position and a closed position [¶ 0071-0072; Fig. 8; joining parts 311 connect the rack cabinet to the rack door, wherein doors commonsensically pivot about their hinges (311)], wherein the fan assembly, the removable controller, and the power supply unit are accessible from an exterior of the rack in both of the open and closed position [Figs. 1, 4, 6-7; ¶ 0051-0052; fan module 12 is disposed within accommodation space 115, wherein it is apparent from inspection that the fans are in a detachable array with handles for said modules, such that the door may be in the open or closed position while providing access the fan modules from the outside] [see ¶ 0062-0066, 0074].
Regarding Claim 18, Chen, as modified, teaches the cooling system of claim 13 above and Johnson further comprising a second power supply unit [10
2 or 104], wherein the first and second power supply units are configured for tool less removal from the rear-door cooling unit [¶ 0112; the power ports are described as corded connections, wherein cords are known to be capable not requiring tools for removal].
Regarding Claim 19, Chen, as modified, teaches the cooling system of claim 13 above and Chen teaches wherein the removable controller is configured for tool less removal from the rear-door cooling unit [¶ 0059-0061, 0063-0064; Fig. 4; the fan 121, controller 123, and power supply are disposed in each fan module 12, wherein the fan module may be insertable to the door frame assembly 11 via assembly parts 1222 and 118, wherein the assembly parts may be described as bulges and guiding grooves, wherein the couples may be described in the prior art as a buckling manner] [Alternatively, Chen does not explicitly describe the use of any tools, thus the assembly may commonsensically be considered tool less].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view Johnson.
Regarding Claim 12, Chen teaches the cooling system of claim 9 above and but Chen does not teach wherein the power supply unit is configured for removal from the rear-door cooling unit in a direction parallel to the lateral axis.
However, Johnson teaches an exhaust air removal system [Figs. 1-11] comprising a plurality of vertically stacked rack-mounted equipment [125] configured to receive a cooled airflow via a plurality of fans [18] disposed at an end of an enclosure [100] [¶ 0053-0055, 0060]. Johnson further teaches a remote programmable controller [325] configured to transmit control signals to the system [¶ 0100]. Johnson further teaches wherein a fan unit [10] [Figs. 7-8] may comprise of power ports [102, 104] disposed at the bottom the unit, wherein the plurality of ports provide electrical redundancy via connection to separate power sources [¶ 0093-0094]. While Johnsons presents the power ports as being on a bottom edge of the unit (i.e. connections removable perpendicular to a lateral axis), an ordinary 90 degree turn of the ports within circuitry [112] at the bottom of Fig. 7 would provide the power ports to be removable in a lateral direction. Johnson teaches that the ports merely provide electrical connection in a circuit [¶ 0093-0095], and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a modification of their orientation would not significantly impact the manner in which the device operates, and may therefore be considered an obvious matter of design choice regarding a rearrangement of parts [MPEPE 2144.04 VI.C].
Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. to position power connections to be removable on a lateral (x) axis, or on a longitudinal (y) axis, or on a directional (z) axis, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. to arrive at a functional air exhaust system for cooling rack equipment, with appropriate power connections, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Chen by trying to provide the power supply unit to be removal in a lateral direction, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Liu and Johnson as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Eckberg.
Regarding Claim 17, Chen, as modified, teaches the cooling system of claim 13 above and while Chen teaches wherein a depth direction is perpendicular to the lateral axis [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection], Chen does not explicitly teach wherein a maximum depth of the rear-door cooling unit is between about 200 mm and about 250 mm.
However, Eckberg teaches a heat exchanger door [510] for an electronics rack [500] [Figs. 5-6 and 10-12], wherein the door comprises an air-to-coolant heat exchanger [520] [¶ 0054], configured to receive and transfer fluid through inlet and outlet manifolds [600, 610] [See Fig. 6]. Eckberg further generally teaches various proposed modifications to a heat exchanger door, such as changing the thickness or weight of the door, leading to the known design considerations such as minimizing operating expenses (i.e. pumping costs proportional to conduit length) and manufacturing costs (proportional to amount of material used in design), as well as affecting uniform flow across the paths [¶ 0046]. Thus, the depth of the rear-door cooling unit is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is a heat exchanger door with reduced operating and manufacturing costs.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein a maximum depth of the rear-door cooling unit in a direction parallel to the second axis is between about 200 mm and about 250 mm, in order to achieve a door heat exchanger with cheaper operating and manufacturing costs.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and further in view of Heydari (US 20220210955 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Chen a method of cooling electrical equipment [Figs. 1-8] including:
providing a rack [at least 1];
mounting a rear-door cooling unit [at least 11] to the rack [¶ 0052], the rear-door cooling unit being pivotable about a first axis between an open position and a closed position [¶ 0071-0072; Fig. 8; joining parts 311 connect the rack cabinet to the rack door, wherein doors commonsensically pivot about their hinges (311)] and defining a first side proximate the rack [Fig. 2; the side closest to the cabinet 2 may be the first side], and a second side opposite the first side [Fig. 1; the opposite side of 1 from the cabinet may be the second side];
mounting a liquid-to-air heat exchanger [13] within the rear-door cooling unit [¶ 0053-0054; Fig. 3; heat dissipation device 13, disposed within casing 131, receives fluid from pipe 132 as well as airflow from fans 121];
inserting a fan [121], a controller [123], and a power supply unit [not shown] [¶ 0063; fan module 12, comprising circuit board 123, may be directly or indirectly connected to a power source; in the context of the prior art, “directly” is interpreted as being provided directly with the fan module, whereas “indirectly” is interpreted as the power source being provided elsewhere besides the fan module], into the rear-door cooling unit, each of the fan, the controller, and the power supply unit mounted to the rear-door cooling unit at the second side [¶ 0063; fan module 12 comprises the claimed components], and accessible from the second side when the rear-door cooling unit is in the closed position [Figs. 1, 4, 6-7; ¶ 0051-0052; fan module is disposed within accommodation space 115, wherein it is apparent from inspection that the fans are in a detachable array with handles for said modules being disposed on the second side, such that the door may be in the closed position and providing access to the second side] [also see ¶ 0062-0066, 0074];
operating the fan to produce an air flow across the heat exchanger [¶ 0007].
While Chen discloses that the coolant distribution unit (CDU) is capable of adjusting the flowrate of liquid through the pipes [¶ 0068], Chen does not explicitly disclose a flow control valve.
However, Heydari teaches a modular unit for local cooling loops in a datacenter cooling system [300] [Fig. 3] comprising a rack [302] and rack fluid lines [310, 312] configured to provide a cooling liquid to the rack system for cooling devices in said rack [¶ 0078], wherein the rack fluid lines may comprise flow controllers [310C, 312C] (valves) configured to control the flow rate of cooling fluid through the manifold to provide said fluid to the rack for cooling [¶ 0081]. Heydari further teaches that providing a means to control flow of the liquid enables the system to divert coolant distribution or change the flow rate, thereby providing a means to control the temperate within a threshold [¶ 0096]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the flow control valve as claimed by known techniques and that in combination, the flow control valve would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a means to control flow of the liquid enables the system to divert coolant distribution or change the flow rate, thereby providing a means to control the temperate within a threshold, thus improving the control capabilities of the system [¶ 0096].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Chen to have a flow control valve to allow a flow of fluid through the liquid-to-air heat exchanger, in view of the teachings of Heydari, where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a means to control flow of the liquid enables the system to divert coolant distribution or change the flow rate, thereby providing a means to control the temperate within a threshold, thus improving the control capabilities of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571) 270-5054. 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.
/KEITH STANLEY MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights