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 § 102
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, 2 & 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chehade (US 2024/0064932).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
With regard to claims 1, 2 & 10, Chehade, in Figures 2, 3 & 5, discloses a datacenter temperature monitoring system for rack-mounted assemblies (paragraph 0002), comprising: a power distribution unit (110) configured to distribute power to each of the rack-mounted assemblies (122); and a thermostatic unit (310 & 320) electrically connected to the PDU and configured to detect a temperature of one or more of the rack-mounted assemblies, wherein, in response to the thermostatic unit detecting a temperature of one of the rack- mounted assemblies that exceeds a high temperature threshold, the thermostatic unit causes the corresponding rack-mounted assembly to be disconnected from the PDU (paragraphs 0069-0072 & 0085) (re claim 1), wherein the disconnecting of the corresponding rack-mounted assembly from the PDU is isolated to the corresponding rack- mounted assembly without affecting the distribution of power to the plurality of other rack- mounted assemblies (paragraph 0054 teaches that each rack-mounted assembly is coupled to the PDU by a dedicated switch 310 such that the disconnection of a single rack-mounted unit does not affect the other rack-mounted units) (re claim 2), wherein the rack-mounted assemblies each comprise an electronic processing board (Fig. 4, 118) that is at least partially immersed in an immersion case (Fig. 4, 116) that contains an immersion cooling liquid for cooling the rack-mounted assembly (paragraph 0056) (re claim 10).
With regard to claims 11 & 12, Chehade, in Figures 2, 3 & 5, discloses a method of monitoring temperatures for datacenter rack-mounted assemblies (paragraph 0002), comprising: distributing power by a power distribution unit (110) to a plurality of rack-mounted assemblies (122) having thermostatic units (310 & 320) mounted thereon (paragraph 0073 teaches that the switch can be coupled to the rackmount unit) configured to detect a temperature of the corresponding rack-mounted assembly; and in response to the thermostatic unit detecting a temperature of the corresponding rack- mounted assembly exceeding a high temperature threshold, the thermostatic unit causing the corresponding rack-mounted assembly to disconnect from the PDU (paragraphs 0069-0072 & 0085) (re claim 11), wherein the disconnecting of the corresponding rack-mounted assembly from the PDU is isolated to the corresponding rack-mounted assembly without affecting the distribution of power to the plurality of other rack-mounted assemblies (paragraph 0054 teaches that each rack-mounted assembly is coupled to the PDU by a dedicated switch 310 such that the disconnection of a single rack-mounted unit does not affect the other rack-mounted units) (re claim 12).
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 3-5, 8 & 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chehade in view of Krasser (US 4,704,594).
With regard to claim 3, Chehade teaches the device of claim 1.
Chehade does not teach that the thermostatic unit comprises a bimetal snap-action thermostat that is mounted onto a front face of each of the rack- mounted assemblies.
Krasser, in Figures 1-4, teaches a thermostatic unit to protect from an overcurrent wherein the unit comprises a bimetal snap-action thermostat (16) that is mounted onto a front face (5) of an assembly (column 6, lines 7-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chehade with Krasser, by forming the thermostatic unit of Chehade as a bimetal thermostat mounted on housing as taught by Krasser, for the purpose of removing the need to provide a separate sensor and switch that is actuated by a controller thus reducing the complexity of the device and ensuring that an overload is protected even if the controller stops functioning.
With regard to claims 3-5 & 8, Chehade in view of Krasser discloses the device of claim 3, and further discloses that the bimetal snap-action thermostat comprises two metal portions with different coefficients of thermal expansion joined together to provide a bimetal element, in which the bimetal element is configured to bend due to the different thermal expansion coefficients based on detected temperature levels (Krassner teaches that the device is a bimetal switch which necessarily would perform the functions of the claim) (re claim 4), wherein, in response to the bimetal element bending beyond a displacement threshold value due to detected temperature levels, the displacement causes the rack-mounted assembly to disconnect from the PDU (Krassner teaches that the bimetal causes the device to turn off and Chehade teaches that when the over temperature condition is detected, the PDU is disconnected from the rack-mounted assemblies) (re claim 5), wherein the rack-mounted assembly requires operator intervention to manually reconnect the PDU after disconnection (Krasser, column 6, lines 18-20 teaches that the device must be manually reset after the bimetallic element is tripped) (re claim 8).
With regard to claim 13, Chehade teaches the method of claim 11.
Chehade does not teach that each thermostatic unit comprises a bimetal snap-action thermostat comprising two metal portions with different coefficients of thermal expansion joined together to provide a bimetal element, in which the bimetal element is configured to bend due to the different thermal expansion coefficients based on detected temperature levels.
Krasser, in Figures 1-4, teaches a thermostatic unit comprising a bimetal snap-action thermostat (16) comprising two metal portions with different coefficients of thermal expansion joined together to provide a bimetal element, in which the bimetal element is configured to bend due to the different thermal expansion coefficients based on detected temperature levels (column 6, lines 7-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chehade with Krasser, by forming the thermostatic unit of Chehade as a bimetal thermostat mounted on housing as taught by Krasser, for the purpose of removing the need to provide a separate sensor and switch that is actuated by a controller thus reducing the complexity of the device and ensuring that an overload is protected even if the controller stops functioning.
With regard to claims 14 & 15, Chehade in view of Krazzer discloses the method of claim 13, and further discloses that in response to the bimetal element bending beyond a displacement threshold value due to detected temperature levels, the displacement causes the rack- mounted assembly to disconnect from the PDU and simultaneously causes a first and second lever elements to dislocate and interrupt an optical rack-mounted assembly locator beam to indicate a location of the rack-mounted assembly disconnected from the PDU (Krassner teaches that the bimetal causes the device to turn off and Chehade teaches that when the over temperature condition is detected, the PDU is disconnected from the rack-mounted assemblies) (re claim 14), wherein the disconnected rack-mounted assembly requires operator intervention to manually reconnect the PDU after disconnection (Krasser, column 6, lines 18-20 teaches that the device must be manually reset after the bimetallic element is tripped) (re claim 15).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chahade.
With regard to claim 9, Chehade discloses the claimed invention except that the high temperature threshold is set between approximately 50 and approximately 80 degrees Celsius. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the threshold temperature to ensure that a specific protected unit does not exceed a temperature that the circuit was designed to operate, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 & 7 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a datacenter temperature monitoring system comprising all the features as recited in the claims and in combination with in response to the bimetal element bending beyond a displacement threshold value due to detected temperature levels, the displacement causes a first and second lever elements to dislocate and interrupt an optical rack-mounted assembly locator beam to indicate a location of the rack-mounted assembly disconnected from the PDU.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because it depends on claim 6 which would also be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hofsaess (US 2012/0126930), Courson (US 2020/0136365), Chen (US 2020/0137927) and Roemer (US 12,074,081) all teach thermostatic units or liquid cooling systems for rack-mounted units that share similarities with Applicant’s invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT BAUER whose telephone number is (571)272-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm - 8pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, THIENVU TRAN can be reached at (571)270-1276. 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.
/Scott Bauer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights