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 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 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 of this title, 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 1-6 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enright et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0120705A1) in view of Archibald et al. (USP 12532433B2), hereinafter referred to as Enright and Archibald, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Enright discloses a cooling system comprising:
a sump area (523) configured to hold a dielectric fluid (“the tank can include a sump area and a bath area. The bath area can hold the computing device immersed in the dielectric fluid. The sump area can be next to the bath area, or the sump area and can be in fluid communication with the bath area. For example, the sump area can receive an overflow of the dielectric fluid from the bath area, e.g., the dielectric fluid can flow over a wall of the bath area adjacent to the sump area. The pump can draw the dielectric fluid from the sump area and pass the fluid through a filter”, ¶300);
a bath area configured to receive a computer component (“The tank can include a bath area and a sump area, and the computing device can be immersed in a dielectric fluid in the bath area of the tank”, ¶273), the bath area configured to hold the dielectric fluid (see annotation above);
a first filter (see annotation below, referring to a first filter of the parallel filters);
a second filter (“The first stage may be a large particle filter located within the bottom of the vessel. The purpose of this filter is to prevent particles which are too large to be handled by the later stages from entering the rest of the system. The second stage may be a medium particulate filter which sits in-line in the piping system between the first and third stage. This second stage medium particulate filter may use a small barrel style filter to remove particulates that were too small to be removed by the first stage filter but still too large to be handled by the third stage filter. The third stage filter may consist of one or more parallel filters with support for various kinds of filter configurations”, underline for emphasis, ¶39); and
a pump configured to draw the dielectric fluid from the sump area, pass the dielectric fluid through the first filter and the second filter, and deliver the dielectric fluid to the bath area (“the tank can include a sump area and a bath area. The bath area can hold the computing device immersed in the dielectric fluid. The sump area can be next to the bath area, or the sump area and can be in fluid communication with the bath area. For example, the sump area can receive an overflow of the dielectric fluid from the bath area, e.g., the dielectric fluid can flow over a wall of the bath area adjacent to the sump area. The pump can draw the dielectric fluid from the sump area and pass the fluid through a filter”, ¶300). Although Enright discloses multiple filter being situated in parallel within an immersion cooled system, Enright fails to disclose a filter configuration fluid is pumped through the first filter or the second filter and a pressure sensor configured to determine a pressure-drop across the first filter, wherein when the pressure-drop across the first filter is smaller than a threshold, the pump is configured to pass the dielectric fluid through the first filter and bypass the second filter, and wherein when the pressure-drop across the first filter is larger than the threshold, the pump is configured to pass the dielectric fluid through the second filter and bypass the first filter.
Archibald, also drawn to liquid cooling electronic components in a data center, teaches a filter configuration fluid is pumped (168a, 168b) through the first filter (198a) or the second filter (198b) and a pressure sensor configured to determine a pressure-drop across the first filter (“additional pressure sensors can be provided along the secondary coolant loop, including for example, pressure sensors immediately upstream and downstream of the filters 198a, 198b to detect a pressure drop across the filters indicating a need for maintenance of one or both of the filters 198a, 198b” (col. 25 ll. 4-9)), wherein when the pressure-drop across the first filter is smaller than a threshold, the pump is configured to pass the fluid through the first filter and bypass the second filter (“The redundant flow paths 181a, 181b are configured to allow personnel to close-off liquid passage through either of the redundant flow paths 181a, 181b to service the respective filters 198a, 198b, while allowing the cooling liquid to continue flowing, uninterrupted, through the other one of the first or second redundant flow paths 181a, 181b and the rest of the secondary coolant circuit” (col. 16 ll. 42-48), wherein the fluid is capable of passing through the first filter and bypassing the second filter in the instance the pressure drop of the second filter indicates a need for maintenance), and wherein when the pressure-drop across the first filter is larger than the threshold, the pump (168a, 168b) is configured to pass the dielectric fluid through the second filter and bypass the first filter (see col. 16 ll. 42-48, wherein the fluid is capable of passing through the second filter and bypassing the first filter in the instance the pressure drop of the first filter indicates a need for maintenance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Enright with a filter configuration fluid is pumped through the first filter or the second filter and a pressure sensor configured to determine a pressure-drop across the first filter, wherein when the pressure-drop across the first filter is smaller than a threshold, the pump is configured to pass the dielectric fluid through the first filter and bypass the second filter, and wherein when the pressure-drop across the first filter is larger than the threshold, the pump is configured to pass the dielectric fluid through the second filter and bypass the first filter, as taught by Archibald, the motivation being to “to allow personnel to close-off liquid passage through either of the redundant flow paths 181a, 181b to service the respective filters 198a, 198b, while allowing the cooling liquid to continue flowing, uninterrupted, through the other one of the first or second redundant flow paths 181a, 181b” (col. 16 ll. 43-48), thereby mitigating degradation or failure of electronic components through excessive temperatures during maintenance.
Regarding Claim 1, MPEP 2114 II clearly states “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and a claim having a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Because Claim 1 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding “when the pressure-drop across the first filter is smaller than a threshold, the pump is configured to pass the dielectric fluid through the first filter and bypass the second filter, and wherein when the pressure-drop across the first filter is larger than the threshold, the pump is configured to pass the dielectric fluid through the second filter and bypass the first filter” limitations, the invention as taught by the combined teachings of Enright and Archibald are deemed fully capable of performing such function. Enright comprises a pump with filters and Archibald teaches parallel filters capable of being bypassed for servicing and pressure sensors that monitor when servicing should occur. Therefore, the claim limitations are met by the combination of the references put forth in this action.
Regarding Claim 2, Enright further discloses the first filter and the second filter (the two parallel filters are previously taught by Archibald in the rejection of Claim 1) are positioned in the sump area (shown in figure 10C of Enright, further Enright states “A filter lid can be mounted on top of the sump area. The filter lid can be installed next to other lids which provide access to the bath area”, ¶307).
Regarding Claim 3, Enright further discloses a pH sensor fluidly connected to the second filter, wherein the pH sensor is configured to indicate a pH of the dielectric fluid flowing through the second filter (“the filter can include a stripe for testing acidity of the dielectric fluid. The stripe can be a PH indicator, litmus paper or other indicator”, ¶306). It is noted that Enright discloses any of the filters may be equipped with a PH indicator to monitor the purity of the working fluid.
Regarding Claim 4, although Enright discloses the pump (522) is configured to deliver the dielectric fluid to the bath area (see ¶300), Enright fails to disclose the first filter includes a first housing and a first spout extending from the first housing, the second filter includes a second housing and a second spout extending from the second housing.
Archibald, also drawn to an electronic cooling system, teaches the first filter (198a) includes a first housing (196a) and a first spout extending from the first housing (shown at least in figure 16, being the piping attached to the filter housing (196a)), the second filter (198b) includes a second housing (196b) and a second spout extending from the second housing (shown at least in figure 16, being the piping attached to the filter housing (196b)), and the pump is (168a, 168b) configured to deliver the fluid to the first spout or the second spout (see ¶70). It is noted that the spouts of Archibald allow for the passage of the working fluid, wherein Enright discloses the working fluid flow path.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Enright with the first filter including a first housing and a first spout extending from the first housing, the second filter including a second housing and a second spout extending from the second housing, as taught by Archibald, the motivation being to allow for the filters to be removed from the system during maintenance and to allow for said filters to be fluidly connected to the circuit in order to remove debris or other particulates harmful to the cooling system.
Regarding Claim 5, a modified Enright further teaches the pump is configured to direct the dielectric fluid through the first filter or (as taught by Archibald in the rejection of Claim 1) the second filter when the computer component is placed in the bath area (“the dielectric fluid can be added to the vessel in a manner that causes liquid dielectric fluid to spill out of the rack 310 and into the sump area 523. Fluid may then be filtered, using the fluid filter 520, and pumped, using the fluid pump 522 and fluid pipe 521, to the far side of the vessel”, ¶160).
Regarding Claim 6, Enright discloses a cooling system comprising:
a vessel (110) including a sump area (523) and a bath area (“The tank can include a bath area and a sump area, and the computing device can be immersed in a dielectric fluid in the bath area of the tank”, ¶273), the bath area configured to receive a computer component (see ¶273), the bath area and the sump area configured to hold a dielectric fluid (see ¶273);
a first filter;
a second filter (“The third stage filter may consist of one or more parallel filters with support for various kinds of filter configurations”, underline for emphasis, ¶39); and
a pump (522) configured to move the dielectric fluid through the cooling system (shown in figure 10C, see also ¶191), wherein,
during a threshold period of time, the pump is configured to draw the dielectric fluid from the sump area, pass the dielectric fluid through the first filter, and deliver the dielectric fluid to the bath area (“the management system can activate the timer or the counter only when the vessel is in operation, the pump is active or the dielectric fluid passes through the filter (as determined by a fluid sensor in the filter). If the management system determines that the filter has been in operation for more than a threshold time, the management system can transmit a notification to the user”, ¶311, wherein the pump passes fluid through parallel filters prior to the threshold time, one filter being the first filter), and wherein,
after the threshold period of time, the pump is configured to draw the dielectric fluid from the sump area, pass the dielectric fluid through the second filter, and deliver the dielectric fluid to the bath area (see annotation directly above, wherein the pump passes fluid through the parallel filters after the threshold time and transmits a notification to the user, the other filter being the second filter). Enright fails to disclose passing the dielectric fluid through the first filter and bypass of the second filter, and automatically switch to pass the dielectric fluid through the second filter and bypass the first filter.
Archibald, also drawn to liquid cooling electronic components in a data center, teaches passing (“additional pressure sensors can be provided along the secondary coolant loop, including for example, pressure sensors immediately upstream and downstream of the filters 198a, 198b to detect a pressure drop across the filters indicating a need for maintenance of one or both of the filters 198a, 198b” (col. 25 ll. 4-9)) the dielectric fluid through the first filter (198a) and bypass of the second filter (198b, “The redundant flow paths 181a, 181b are configured to allow personnel to close-off liquid passage through either of the redundant flow paths 181a, 181b to service the respective filters 198a, 198b, while allowing the cooling liquid to continue flowing, uninterrupted, through the other one of the first or second redundant flow paths 181a, 181b and the rest of the secondary coolant circuit” (col. 16 ll. 42-48), wherein the fluid is capable of passing through the first filter and bypassing the second filter in the instance the pressure drop of the second filter indicates a need for maintenance)), and automatically (“mechatronic components of a CDU can be in communication with a controller of the CDU. For example, the controller 234 can be in operative communication with valve components 250. The valve components 250 can include any or all of the two-way valve 154, three-way valve 158, the upstream shutoff valves 186, the downstream shutoff valves 188, the egress valves 200, and any other valves of the CDU 100”, col. 27 ll. 1-7) switch to pass the dielectric fluid through the second filter and bypass the first filter (see col. 16 ll. 42-48, wherein the fluid is capable of passing through the second filter and bypassing the first filter in the instance the pressure drop of the first filter indicates a need for maintenance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Enright with passing the dielectric fluid through the first filter and bypass of the second filter, and automatically switch to pass the dielectric fluid through the second filter and bypass the first filter, as taught by Archibald, the motivation being to “to allow personnel to close-off liquid passage through either of the redundant flow paths 181a, 181b to service the respective filters 198a, 198b, while allowing the cooling liquid to continue flowing, uninterrupted, through the other one of the first or second redundant flow paths 181a, 181b” (col. 16 ll. 43-48), thereby mitigating degradation or failure of electronic components through excessive temperatures during maintenance.
Regarding Claim 6, MPEP 2114 II clearly states “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and a claim having a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Because Claim 6 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding “passing the dielectric fluid through the first filter and bypass of the second filter, and automatically switch to pass the dielectric fluid through the second filter and bypass the first filter” limitations, the invention as taught by the combined teachings of Enright and Archibald are deemed fully capable of performing such function. Enright comprises a pump with filters and Archibald teaches parallel filters capable of being bypassed for servicing and pressure sensors that monitor when servicing should occur. Therefore, the claim limitations are met by the combination of the references put forth in this action.
Regarding Claim 9, Enright further discloses a pressure sensor configured to determine a pressure-drop across the first filter (“the filter can include an input pipe and an output pipe, and there can be a pressure sensor on the input pipe and a pressure sensor on the output pipe. Each pressure sensor can transmit a pressure reading to the management system. If the pressure differential between the readings of the pressure sensors exceeds a threshold pressure, the management sensor can determine that the filter is clogged”, ¶311 and “additional pressure sensors can be provided along the secondary coolant loop, including for example, pressure sensors immediately upstream and downstream of the filters 198a, 198b to detect a pressure drop across the filters indicating a need for maintenance of one or both of the filters 198a, 198b” (col. 25 ll. 4-9) of Archibald).
Regarding Claim 10, a modified Enright further teaches when the pressure-drop across the first filter is smaller than a threshold, the pump is configured to pass the dielectric fluid through the first filter (198a of Archibald, “additional pressure sensors can be provided along the secondary coolant loop, including for example, pressure sensors immediately upstream and downstream of the filters 198a, 198b to detect a pressure drop across the filters indicating a need for maintenance of one or both of the filters 198a, 198b” (col. 25 ll. 4-9), wherein the fluid is capable of passing through the first filter when there is no need for maintenance), and wherein when the pressure-drop across the first filter is larger than the threshold, the pump is configured to pass the dielectric fluid through the second filter (see col. 16 ll. 42-48 of Archibald, wherein the fluid is capable of passing through the second filter and bypassing the first filter in the instance the pressure drop of the first filter indicates a need for maintenance).
Regarding Claim 10, MPEP 2114 II clearly states “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and a claim having a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Because Claim 10 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding “when the pressure-drop across the first filter is smaller than a threshold, the pump is configured to pass the dielectric fluid through the first filter, and wherein when the pressure-drop across the first filter is larger than the threshold, the pump is configured to pass the dielectric fluid through the second filter” limitations, the invention as taught by the combined teachings of Enright and Archibald are deemed fully capable of performing such function. Enright comprises a pump with filters and Archibald teaches parallel filters capable of being bypassed for servicing and pressure sensors that monitor when servicing should occur. Therefore, the claim limitations are met by the combination of the references put forth in this action.
Regarding Claim 11, Enright further discloses a flow sensor configured to determine a flow rate across the first filter (“the filter can include a sensor which indicates that flow rate for the filter. The management system can use the flow rate to determine if the filter needs service”, ¶311).
Regarding Claim 12, Enright further discloses when the flow rate across the first filter is greater than a threshold, the pump passes the dielectric fluid through the first filter (“the filter can include a sensor which indicates that flow rate for the filter. The management system can use the flow rate to determine if the filter needs service”, ¶311), and wherein when the flow rate across the first filter is smaller than the threshold, the pump passes the dielectric fluid through the second filter (see ¶311, wherein the fluid is passing through both of the parallel filters in the case where the flow rate measurement does not indicate servicing is required and the fluid is passing through the second filter if the flow rate of the first filter indicates servicing is required).
Regarding Claim 12, MPEP 2114 II clearly states “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and a claim having a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Because Claim 12 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding “when the flow rate across the first filter is greater than a threshold, the pump passes the dielectric fluid through the first filter, and wherein when the flow rate across the first filter is smaller than the threshold, the pump passes the dielectric fluid through the second filter” limitations, the invention as taught by the combined teachings of Enright and Archibald are deemed fully capable of performing such function. Enright comprises a pump with filters and Archibald teaches parallel filters capable of being bypassed for servicing and pressure sensors that monitor when servicing should occur. Therefore, the claim limitations are met by the combination of the references put forth in this action.
Regarding Claim 13, Enright further discloses a pH sensor fluidly connected to the second filter (“the filter can include a stripe for testing acidity of the dielectric fluid. The stripe can be a PH indicator, litmus paper or other indicator”, ¶306), wherein the pH sensor is configured to determine a pH of the dielectric fluid flowing through the second filter after the threshold period of time (see ¶306, wherein the pH level is tested within the filter continuously).
Regarding Claim 14, Enright fails to explicitly disclose the threshold period of time is fourteen days. Enright does, however, disclose a threshold period of time exists for the system, wherein a user is notified at the termination of said threshold period (see ¶311) to replace said filter. Therefore, the amount of time that comprises the threshold period is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that an increased threshold time requires a more robust filter that allows for greater fluid flow prior to becoming faulty/clogged and being more convenient to a user wherein the filter is replaced less frequently over a period of time and vice versa. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the filter comprises a threshold time to designate replacement, was disclosed in the prior art by Enright, 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 the threshold time of Enright to be fourteen days. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding Claim 15, Enright discloses cooling system comprising:
a vessel (110) including a sump area (523) and a bath area (“The tank can include a bath area and a sump area, and the computing device can be immersed in a dielectric fluid in the bath area of the tank”, ¶273), the bath area configured to receive a computer component (see ¶273), the bath area and the sump area configured to hold a dielectric fluid (see ¶273);
an expandable bellows (905) configured to regulate an interior pressure of the vessel (“Dielectric vapor may flow from the tank 710 through piping to one or more bellows 905. In some embodiments, the vapor recovery system 900 comprises an expanding and collapsing bellows 905 configured to receive the dielectric vapor, thereby reducing or eliminating any pressure build-up in the tank 710”, ¶249);
a filter (520) having a housing (shown in figure 10C); and
a pump (522) configured to draw the dielectric fluid from the sump area (shown in figure 10C), pass the dielectric fluid through the filter (shown in figure 10C), and deliver the dielectric fluid to the bath area (“the tank can include a sump area and a bath area. The bath area can hold the computing device immersed in the dielectric fluid. The sump area can be next to the bath area, or the sump area and can be in fluid communication with the bath area. For example, the sump area can receive an overflow of the dielectric fluid from the bath area, e.g., the dielectric fluid can flow over a wall of the bath area adjacent to the sump area. The pump can draw the dielectric fluid from the sump area and pass the fluid through a filter”, ¶300),
wherein the expandable bellows is configured to receive the dielectric fluid in a gaseous state, and wherein
the expandable bellows is configured to direct the dielectric fluid in a liquid state into the vessel (“When the system cools or a portion of the dielectric vapor is condensed to dielectric liquid, the bellows may collapse or contract to substantially maintain a pressure equilibrium within the tank 710”, ¶249).
Enright fails to disclose the first filter includes a spout extending from the housing.
Archibald, also drawn to an electronic cooling system, teaches a first filter (198a) includes a spout extending from the first (196a) housing (shown at least in figure 16, being the piping attached to the filter housing (196a)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Enright with the first filter including a spout extending from the housing, as taught by Archibald, the motivation being to allow for the filter to be removed from the system during maintenance and to allow the filter to be fluidly connected to the circuit.
Regarding Claim 15, MPEP 2114 II clearly states “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and a claim having a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Because Claim 15 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding “wherein the expandable bellows is configured to receive the dielectric fluid in a gaseous state, and wherein the expandable bellows is configured to direct the dielectric fluid in a liquid state into the vessel” limitations, the invention as taught by the combined teachings of Enright and Archibald are deemed fully capable of performing such function. Enright comprises bellows being fluidly connected to the tank and capable of capturing vaporized fluid and capable of condensing said fluid to be released back into the tank. Therefore, the claim limitations are met by the combination of the references put forth in this action.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enright et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0120705A1) in view of Archibald et al. (USP 12532433B2) as applied in Claims 1-6 and 9-15 above and in further view of Wu (Translation of CN112888273A), hereinafter referred to as Wu.
Regarding Claim 7, although Enright discloses filters being situated in parallel for filtering coolant and a pump (522) for delivering fluid to parallel filters (see ¶39), Enright fails to disclose a valve in fluid communication with the pump, a first pipe fluidly connecting the valve and the first filter, and a second pipe fluidly connecting the valve and the second filter.
Wu, also drawn to a cooling system, teaches a valve (5) in fluid communication with pressurized fluid (shown in figure 1), a first pipe fluidly connecting the valve and the first filter (1, shown in figure1), and a second pipe fluidly connecting the valve and the second filter (2, shown in figure1). It is noted that Enright discloses a pump feeding the fluid to parallel filters, wherein Wu teaches parallel filters being fluidly connected by a single valve. Wu further states, “The double-filter of the invention can realize the automatic switching of the two filtering branches through the electric three-way valve; it can quickly recover the smooth of the water path when the filter is in failure”, abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Enright with the above limitations, as taught by Wu, the motivation being to minimize downtime of the filtering device by allowing for redundant filters.
Regarding Claim 8, although Enright discloses filters being situated in parallel for filtering coolant and a pump (522) for delivering fluid to parallel filters (see ¶39), Enright fails to disclose during the threshold period of time, the valve fluidly connects the pump and the first filter and fluidly isolates the pump from the second filter and wherein after the threshold period of time, the valve fluidly connects the pump and the second filter and fluidly isolates the pump (522 of Enright) from the first filter.
Wu teaches, during a threshold period of time, the valve fluidly connects the pressurized fluid and the first filter (1) and fluidly isolates the pressurized fluid from the second (2) filter (during the default state wherein, “the controller the electric three-way valve 5 of the common end C end 5.1 and the A end 5.2 in the open state, the electric three-way valve 5 of the common end C end 5.1 and B end 5.3 in the off state”), and wherein after the threshold period of time, the valve fluidly connects the pressurized fluid and the second filter and fluidly isolates the pressurized fluid from the first filter (“if 1 # filter branch after a certain time 1 # pressure difference switch 3 the filter dirty block sends the fault signal; the external controller receives the signal then the electric three-way valve 5 reversing; the common end C end 5.1 and B end 5.3 of the electric three-way valve 5 is placed in the open state; the common end C end 5.3 and the B end 5.2 of the electric three-way valve 5 are in a closed state”). It is noted that Wu teaches the parallel filters operating in a default state with a single filter allowing for the flow of working fluid while the other flid is isolated, wherein after a period of time elapses a pressure measurement is taken that detects a clogged filter and redirects the fluid through the unclogged filter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Enright with the above limitations, as taught by Wu, the motivation being to minimize downtime of the filtering device by allowing for redundant filters.
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enright et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0120705A1) in view of Archibald et al. (USP 12532433B2) as applied in Claims 1-6 and 9-15 above and in further view of Tang et al. (Translation of CN109458768A), hereinafter referred to as Tang.
Regarding Claim 16, although Enright further teaches a door (711) selectively coupled to the vessel (shown in figures 12C, 13 and 16), wherein the door is movable between an opened position and a closed position (“the tank 710 may have multiple doors 711, thereby limiting the exposure of the interior of the tank 710 when a single door 711 is opened for the purpose of removing, installing and/or replacing a component or chassis 400”, ¶189), wherein the door provides access to the vessel in the opened position, wherein the door seals against the vessel in the closed position (shown in figure 12C, see ¶189), Enright fails to disclose the door is provided between the vessel and the expandable bellows.
Tang teaches a door (22) is provided between the vessel (1) and the bellows (21).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting the door being provided between the vessel and the expandable bellows with the door not being provided between the vessel and the expandable bellows; further the prior art to Tang teaches bellows being attached to a shell with a door being placed between the bellows and said shell. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Enright with having the door being provided between the vessel and the expandable bellows, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Tang there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Enright by having the door being provided between the vessel and the expandable bellows in order to have visual configuration of the pressure cycle within the tank.
Regarding Claim 20, a modified Enright teaches the filter is a first filter (“The third stage filter may consist of one or more parallel filters with support for various kinds of filter configurations”, underline for emphasis, ¶39), wherein parallel filters are utilized within the system), the housing is a first housing (see rejection of Claim 15 above), the spout is a first spout (see rejection of Claim 15 above) the cooling system further comprises a second filter (“The third stage filter may consist of one or more parallel filters with support for various kinds of filter configurations”, underline for emphasis, ¶39), the pump (522) is configured to pass the dielectric fluid through the first filter and deliver the dielectric fluid to the bath area through the first filter (“the tank can include a sump area and a bath area. The bath area can hold the computing device immersed in the dielectric fluid. The sump area can be next to the bath area, or the sump area and can be in fluid communication with the bath area. For example, the sump area can receive an overflow of the dielectric fluid from the bath area, e.g., the dielectric fluid can flow over a wall of the bath area adjacent to the sump area. The pump can draw the dielectric fluid from the sump area and pass the fluid through a filter”, ¶300) during a threshold period of time (“the management system can activate the timer or the counter only when the vessel is in operation, the pump is active or the dielectric fluid passes through the filter (as determined by a fluid sensor in the filter). If the management system determines that the filter has been in operation for more than a threshold time, the management system can transmit a notification to the user”, ¶311, wherein the pump passes fluid through parallel filters prior to the threshold time, one filter being the first filter), and the pump is configured to pass the dielectric fluid through the second filter and deliver the dielectric fluid to the bath area through the second filter after the threshold period of time (see annotation directly above, wherein the pump passes fluid through the parallel filters after the threshold time and transmits a notification to the user, the other filter being the second filter).
Enright fails to disclose the second filter having a second housing and a second spout extending from the second housing.
Archibald, also drawn to an electronic cooling system, teaches a second filter (198b) having a second housing (196b) and a second spout extending from the second housing (shown at least in figure 16, being the piping attached to the filter housing (196a)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Enright with disclose the second filter having a second housing and a second spout extending from the second housing, as taught by Archibald, the motivation being to allow for the filter to be removed from the system during maintenance and to allow the filter to be fluidly connected to the circuit.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enright et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0120705A1) in view of Archibald et al. (USP 12532433B2) as applied in Claims 1-6 and 9-15 above and in view of Wu et al. (Translation of CN109458768A ) as applied in Claims 16 and 20 above and in further view of Chen et al. (Translation of CN109629954A), hereinafter referred to as Chen.
Regarding Claim 17, Enright fails to disclose the door is coupled to the vessel by a motorized clamp that is configured to move the door between the opened position and the closed position.
Chen teaches a door (2) is coupled to the vessel (1) by a motorized clamp (15, 5) that is configured to move the door between the opened position and the closed position (“The invention relates to the field of automatic door technology, specifically a mechanism can realize automatic closing”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Enright with the door being coupled to the vessel by a motorized clamp that is configured to move the door between the opened position and the closed position, as taught by Chen, the motivation being “controlling the locking state of the door body, and improves the practicability of the automatic door closing device”, wherein automatically closing the door mitigates unwanted debris from entering in cases where “people forget closing or does not want closing problem at night, which greatly improves the convenience of people”.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enright et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0120705A1) in view of Archibald et al. (USP 12532433B2) as applied in Claims 1-6 and 9-15 above and in view of Wu et al. (Translation of CN109458768A ) as applied in Claims 16 and 20 above and in further view of Ross et al. (USP 9795062B1), hereinafter referred to as Ross.
Regarding Claim 18, although Enright further discloses the vessel is positioned within a shell (“the computing system may be contained within an outer housing as shown in FIG. 14. In some embodiments, the components schematically identified in FIG. 13 and/or disclosed herein may be contained within the outer housing”, ¶220), Enright fails to disclose the vessel is positioned within a shell, and wherein a shock absorber is positioned between the shell and the vessel.
Ross, also drawn to a portable electronic housing with cooling, teaches a vessel (902) is positioned within a shell (904), and wherein a shock absorber (906) is positioned between the shell and the vessel (shown in figure 9A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Enright with the vessel being positioned within a shell, and wherein a shock absorber being positioned between the shell and the vessel, as taught by Ross, the motivation being “Without a vibration isolation platform, such vibrations and impacts may damage computing devices installed in a portable data center”.
Regarding Claim 19, a modified Enright further teaches the shock absorber is an active shock absorber, and wherein a stiffness of the active shock absorber is adjusted based on a stress characteristic imposed on the vessel (“an air pressure in a vibration cushion, such as cushion 906, may be adjusted to change a natural frequency of a system that includes a vibration isolation platform coupled with the vibration cushion. For example, increasing a pressure in a vibration cushion may increase a stiffness of the cushion, whereas reducing a pressure in a vibration cushion may reduce a stiffness of the cushion”, see col. 19 ll. 45-51 of Ross).
Regarding Claim 19, MPEP 2114 II clearly states “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and a claim having a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Because Claim 19 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding “a stiffness of the active shock absorber is adjusted based on a stress characteristic imposed on the vessel”, the invention as taught by the combined teachings of Enright and Ross are deemed fully capable of performing such function. Ross comprises a vibration isolator which is capable of being adjusted for absorbing varying levels of vibration. Therefore, the claim limitations are met by the combination of the references put forth in this action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights