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 10/29/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees.
A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AJA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto- processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,063,762 to Ortenzi. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 2-21 of the instant application are unpatentable
over by patent claims 1-9 in that the patent claims contain most of the limitations of the instant application claims.
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 r ejection 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 depends on 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 2, 4-7 and 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over GAO (US 2021/0084796) in view of Shibata et al.
(US 2013/0314873).
In regards to claim 2, GAO discloses a cooling enclosure (Figs. 1, 3, 5-6), comprising: a rack (electronic rack 500), comprising: and a server portion (host servers 503A-D); a plurality of central processing units (CPUs) arranged within the server portion (refer to par. 53); a plurality of graphics processing units (GPUs) arranged within the server portion (refer to par. 53); a liquid cooling enclosure (mounting enclosure 15), comprising: and a plurality of cooling units (liquid cooling modules 2a-2e); an inlet connection (supply connector 9) configured to provide liquid to the liquid cooling enclosure (Figs. 1, 3 and 5); an outlet connection (return connector 10) configured to remove liquid from the liquid cooling enclosure (Figs. 1, 3 and 5); and an air cooling enclosure (fan module 513), comprising: a first fan and a second fan (one or more cooling fans; par. 49); wherein one or more manifolds (supply manifold and return manifold; par. 50) associated with the inlet connection (9) or the outlet connection (10) are positioned along the hot side of the air cooling enclosure (513) and the second fan (one or more cooling fans; par. 49) is configured to drive cooled air over the server portion (503A-D) and along the one or more manifolds (supply manifold and return manifold; par. 50) to the first fan (Figs. 3 and 5).
GAO fails to explicitly teach a plurality of heat pipes extending from the liquid cooling enclosure to the sever portion; the first fan at a cold side of the air cooling enclosure; and the second fan at a hot side of the air cooling enclosure.
Shibata teaches a cooling device for rack-type electronic equipment (Figs. 1-3) wherein a plurality of heat pipes (multiple heat pipes 31) extending from the liquid cooling enclosure (enclosure of cooling device 4; Figs 2-3) to the sever portion (multiple rack-type electronic equipment 2); the first fan (blower 19 at inlet 7) at a cold side of the air cooling enclosure (enclosure section 6); and the second fan (discharge fan not shown at outlet side 8; par. 31) at a hot side of the air cooling enclosure (Figs 2-3).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of GAO such that a plurality of heat pipes extending from the liquid cooling enclosure to the sever portion; the first fan at a cold side of the air cooling enclosure; and the second fan at a hot side of the air cooling enclosure as taught by Shibata in order to appropriately cooling can be done in response to the amount of heat generated from rack-type electronic equipment 2 (refer to par. 32 of Shibata).
In regards to claim 4, Gao as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 2. Further, Gao teaches wherein each cooling unit (2) of the plurality of cooling units (2a-e) is individually associated with a designated CPU (503) of the plurality of CPUs (503A-D) or a designated GPU of the plurality of GPUs (refer to par. 52).
In regards to claim 5, Gao as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 2, but fails to explicitly teach further comprising: a second liquid cooling enclosure configured to receive liquid from the outlet connection of the liquid cooling enclosure. However, in view of Gao’s teaching, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the addition of more units of a type already extant in a system for the sole purpose of cooling chips in a server rack, is obvious duplication of parts and is a matter of routine skill in the art as no unexpected result is produced (the parts in this case merely predictably providing more of their respective functions) See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. Duplication of Parts and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
In regards to claim 6, Gao as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 2. Further, Gao teaches further comprising: a controller (rack management controller (RMC) 522) configured to regulate a flow of the liquid into the liquid cooling enclosure based, at least in part, of one or more temperature values associated with the rack (refer to pars. 2 and 54).
In regards to claim 7, Gao as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 6. Further, Gao teaches further comprising: one or more valves (16, 17) configured to regulate the flow of the liquid into the liquid cooling enclosure responsive to a signal from the controller (refer to pars. 28-29).
In regards to claim 10, Gao as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 2. Further, Shibata teaches wherein the air cooling enclosure (enclosure section 6) is axially above the rack (multiple rack-type electronic equipment 2) and the liquid cooling enclosure (enclosure of cooling device 4; Figs 2-3) is positioned next to the rack (2).
Claims 11, 13-15 and 16-21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over GAO (US 2021/0084796) in view of Chu et al. (US
2005/0068728).
In regards to claim 11, GAO discloses a cooling system (Figs. 1, 3, 5-6) for a server rack (electronic rack 500), comprising: a plurality of cooling units (liquid cooling modules 2a-2e); and the cooling enclosure (mounting enclosure 15) for the plurality of cooling units (2a-2e), wherein cooling water is directed into the cooling enclosure (15) and heated water is directed out (via connector 10) of the cooling enclosure (15).
GAO fails to explicitly teach a plurality of heat pipes extending from a cooling enclosure, each heat pipe of the plurality of heat pipes configured to be connected to one or more heat producing elements within the server rack; wherein individual cooling units of the plurality of cooling units are coupled to individual heat pipes of the plurality of heat pipes; wherein the cooling water is not directed into the server rack.
Chu teaches cooling device (Figs. 4-5) wherein a plurality of heat pipes (525a-c) extending from the cooling enclosure (housing 410), each heat pipe (525) of the plurality of heat pipes (525a-c) configured to be connected to one or more heat producing elements (a processor module 510) within the server rack (multi-drawer electronics rack 400/500); wherein individual cooling units (corresponding to modular system cold plate 540/340) of the plurality of cooling units are coupled to individual heat pipes (525) of the plurality of heat pipes (525a-c); wherein the cooling water is not directed into the server rack (refer to par. 23-24; Figs. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of GAO such that a plurality of heat pipes extending from a cooling enclosure, each heat pipe of the plurality of heat pipes configured to be connected to one or more heat producing elements within the server rack; wherein individual cooling units of the plurality of cooling units are coupled to individual heat pipes of the plurality of heat pipes; wherein the cooling water is not directed into the server rack as taught by Chu in order to ensure good thermal contact between the condenser 530 and the module cold plate and avoid leakage in the rack (refer to par. 25 of Chu).
In regards to claim 13, Gao as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 12. Further, Gao teaches further comprising: a manifold (525; Fig. 5) associated with the cooling enclosure (corresponding to mount enclosure 505) positioned within an air flow pathway of the second fan (corresponding to fan module 513).
In regards to claim 14, Gao as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 11, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of cooling units include cooling fins. Chu further teaches wherein the plurality of cooling units include cooling fins (air cooled heat sink 150 is shown to comprise a plurality of fins, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of GAO such that wherein the plurality of cooling units include cooling fins as taught by Chu in order to force air cooling and maintain reasonable chip temperature for circuit performance and reliability in the rack (refer to par. 17 of Chu).
In regards to claim 15, Gao as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 11. Further, Gao teaches further comprising: an inlet connection (supply connector 9) configured to direct water into the cooling enclosure (Figs. 1, 3 and 5); and an outlet connection (return connector 10) configured to direct water out of the cooling enclosure (Figs. 1, 3 and 5).
In regards to claim 16, Gao as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 11, but fails to explicitly teach further comprising: a second cooling enclosure having a second plurality of cooling units, wherein individual cooling units of the second plurality of cooling units are coupled to individual heat pipes of the plurality of heat pipes. However, in view of Gao’s teaching, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the addition of more units of a type already extant in a system for the sole purpose of cooling chips in a server rack, is obvious duplication of parts and is a matter of routine skill in the art as no unexpected result is produced (the parts in this case merely predictably providing more of their respective functions) See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. Duplication of Parts and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
In regards to claim 17, Gao as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 11. Further, Gao teaches wherein the one or more heat producing elements (503) include at least one of central processing units (CPUs) (503A-D) or graphics processing units (GPUs) (refer to par. 52).
In regards to claim 18, GAO discloses a cooling system (Figs. 1, 3, 5-6), comprising: a liquid cooling enclosure (mounting enclosure 15), comprising: a plurality of cooling units (liquid cooling modules 2a-2e); an inlet connection (supply connector 9) configured to provide liquid to the liquid cooling enclosure (15); and an outlet connection (return connector 10) configured to remove liquid from the liquid cooling enclosure; and an air cooling enclosure (fan module 513), comprising: a first fan and a second fan (one or more cooling fans; par. 49).
GAO fails to explicitly teach a plurality of heat pipes extending from the cooling enclosure and coupled to respective cooling units of the plurality of cooling units.
Chu teaches cooling device (Figs. 4-5) wherein a plurality of heat pipes (525a-c) extending from the cooling enclosure (housing 410) and coupled to respective cooling units (corresponding to modular system cold plate 540/340) of the plurality of cooling units (540/340).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of GAO such that a plurality of heat pipes extending from the cooling enclosure and coupled to respective cooling units of the plurality of cooling units as taught by Chu in order to ensure good thermal contact between the condenser 530 and the module cold plate 540 and avoid leakage in the rack (refer to par. 25 of Chu).
In regards to claim 19, Gao as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 18, but fails to explicitly teach wherein liquid is not directed into the plurality of heat pipes and associated heat producing elements, cooled by the plurality of heat pipes, are not exposed to the liquid.
Chu further teaches wherein the liquid (water) is not directed into the plurality of heat pipes (525a-c) and associated heat producing elements (a processor module 510), cooled by the plurality of heat pipes (525a-c), are not exposed to the liquid (refer to par. 23-24; Figs. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of GAO such that liquid is not directed into the plurality of heat pipes and associated heat producing elements, cooled by the plurality of heat pipes, are not exposed to the liquid as taught by Chu in order to ensure good thermal contact between the condenser 530 and the module cold plate and avoid leakage in the rack (refer to par. 25 of Chu).
In regards to claim 20, Gao as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 18. Further, Gao teaches wherein each cooling unit (2) of the plurality of cooling units (2a-e) is individually associated with a designated CPU (503) of the plurality of CPUs (503A-D) or a designated GPU of the plurality of GPUs (refer to par. 52).
In regards to claim 21, Gao as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 20. Further, Gao teaches further comprising: a controller (rack management controller (RMC) 522) configured to regulate a flow of the liquid into the liquid cooling enclosure based, at least in part, of one or more temperature values associated with at least one of a CPU of the plurality of CPUs or a GPU of the plurality of GPUs (refer to pars. 2 and 54).
Claims 3 and 8-9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over GAO (US 2021/0084796) in view of Shibata et al.
(US 2013/0314873), further in view of Chu et al. (US 2005/0068728).
In regards to claim 3, Gao as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 2, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the liquid is not directed into the rack from the liquid cooling enclosure.
Chu teaches cooling device wherein the liquid (water) is not directed into the rack (100) from the liquid cooling enclosure (corresponding to system cold plate is cooled by an external water supply), (refer to par. 23-24; Figs. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of GAO such that the liquid is not directed into the rack from the liquid cooling enclosure as taught by Chu in order to ensure good thermal contact between the condenser 530 and the module cold plate 540 and avoid leakage in the rack (refer to par. 13 of Chu).
In regards to claim 8, Gao as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 2, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of cooling units comprise one or more fins. Chu further teaches wherein the plurality of cooling units comprise one or more fins (air cooled heat sink 150 is shown to comprise a plurality of fins, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of GAO such that wherein the plurality of cooling units comprise one or more fins as taught by Chu in order to force air cooling and maintain reasonable chip temperature for circuit performance and reliability in the rack (refer to par. 17 of Chu).
In regards to claim 9, Gao as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 2, but fails to explicitly teach further comprising: a flexible inlet hose extending from the inlet connection to a cooling water source; and a flexible outlet hose extending from the outlet connection to a heated water return.
Chu teaches wherein further comprising: a flexible inlet hose extending from the inlet connection to a cooling water source (provide hoses to bring water into and out; par. 18); and a flexible outlet hose extending from the outlet connection to a heated water return (provide hoses to bring water into and out; par. 18).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of GAO such that a flexible inlet hose extending from the inlet connection to a cooling water source; and a flexible outlet hose extending from the outlet connection to a heated water return as taught by Chu in order to provide the required cooling capability, and flexibility (refer to par. 18 of Chu).
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over GAO (US 2021/0084796) in view of Chu et al. (US 2005/0068728), further
in view of Gedamu et al. (US 2005/0047086).
In regards to claim 12, GAO as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 11, but fails to explicitly teach further comprising: a first fan within an air cooling enclosure coupled to the server rack; and a second fan within the air cooling enclosure coupled to the server rack; wherein the first fan and the second fan direct air into the server rack using a push-pull configuration.
Gedamu teaches further comprising: a first fan (fan 128 in module 124) within an air cooling enclosure (enclosure walls; par. 17) coupled to the server rack (corresponding to computer processors P); and a second fan (fan 128 in module 126) within the air cooling enclosure coupled to the server rack (P); wherein the first fan and the second fan direct air into the server rack using a push-pull configuration (air can be forced into an inlet end of the heat dissipation apparatus and can be drawn out; par. 13).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of GAO such that further comprising: a first fan within an air cooling enclosure coupled to the server rack; and a second fan within the air cooling enclosure coupled to the server rack; wherein the first fan and the second fan direct air into the server rack using a push-pull configuration as taught by Gedamu in order to transmit heat to the heat sink and the prongs may be removed, thereby cooling the processor to the heat sink and the prongs may be removed, thereby cooling the processor (refer to par. 13 of Gedamu).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTHA TADESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-0590. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For
more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.T/
Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763