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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 3 is 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. Claim 3 recites “a refrigerant pipe”, however claim 1 already recites a refrigerant pipe of the flow distribution unit. The office is unclear whether there are two or one refrigerant pipe within the flow distribution unit. The office will interpret a single refrigerant pipe.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 AIA . 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 nonstatutory 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 (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-5 of copending Application No. 18/805146 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-5 of app 146 anticipate the limitations of claims 1-5.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
In regards to Claim 1, App ‘146 discloses an edge data center comprising: a liquid-cooled container, a liquid-cooled server, and a gravity assisted heat pipe system; wherein the gravity assisted heat pipe system comprises an outdoor heat exchange unit, an indoor evaporative liquid cooling cold plate, and a flow distribution unit; the liquid-cooled server is arranged inside the liquid-cooled container, and a heating element of the liquid-cooled server is attached with the indoor evaporative liquid cooling cold plate; and the outdoor heat exchange unit is arranged outside the liquid-cooled container, and the outdoor heat exchange unit is connected to an indoor component of the gravity assisted heat pipe system by means of a refrigerant pipe of the flow distribution unit (Claim 1).
Dependent claims 2-5 are also rejected using app ‘146 (See claims 2-5 of app ‘146).
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farshechian hereafter as, Far (U.S 2016/0330873 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Far discloses an edge data center comprising: a liquid-cooled container (Fig.1, #105), a liquid-cooled server (Fig.1, #110), and a gravity assisted heat pipe system (Fig.1); wherein the gravity assisted heat pipe system comprises an outdoor heat exchange unit (Fig.1, #115), an indoor evaporative liquid cooling cold plate (Fig.1, #123, which the office interprets as a cold plate, see paragraph [0061]), and a flow distribution unit (Fig.1, #119/117/130/125); the liquid-cooled server is arranged inside the liquid-cooled container (Fig.1, #110 is within #105), and a heating element (Fig.1, #124 and see paragraph [0052-0054]) of the liquid-cooled server is attached with the indoor evaporative liquid cooling cold plate (Fig.1, #123 is attached to server #110); and the outdoor heat exchange unit is arranged outside the liquid-cooled container (Fig.1, #115 is located outside of #105), and the outdoor heat exchange unit is connected to an indoor component of the gravity assisted heat pipe system by means of a refrigerant pipe (Fig.1, #119/117) of the flow distribution unit (Fig.1, #119/117 are part of the flow distribution unit).
In regards to Claim 4, Far discloses the edge data center as claimed in claim 1, wherein a thermal conductive coating (Fig.1 and paragraph [0006], discloses using thermal interface material) is provided between the heating element and the indoor evaporative liquid cooling cold plate (Paragraph [0006], which discloses using a thermal interface material between the cold plate #123 and heat source #124 to decrease any thermal resistance between the two elements).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farshechian hereafter as, Far (U.S 2016/0330873 A1) in view of Hou (CN 207150979 U).
In regards to Claim 2, Far discloses the edge data center as claimed in claim 1.
Far fails to disclose: Further comprising an air-cooled air conditioner and a power distribution monitoring unit arranged inside the liquid-cooled container, wherein the power distribution monitoring unit is configured to monitor and control an operating state of the air-cooled air conditioner.
However, Hou discloses: Further comprising an air-cooled air conditioner (Fig.1, #12) and a power distribution monitoring unit (Fig.2, #5 in conjunction with the controller, sensors which are used in conjunction to monitor) arranged inside the liquid-cooled container (Fig.2), wherein the power distribution monitoring unit is configured to monitor and control an operating state of the air-cooled air conditioner (Fig.2, #5 which is the control panel, allows users to control the air condition, the fan, increase/decrease temperature (see “the integrated panel 5 comprises an integrated panel and a monitoring panel, to control the whole machine cabinet inner part through the integrated panel, said monitoring panel for monitoring working state of the cabinet inner part”), as such the office notes that with the combination of Far in view of Hou, the liquid cooled container (as taught by Far) would be modified to include an air conditioner and power distribution monitoring unit (as taught by Hou) to have full control over the cooling via the air conditioner).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the liquid cooled container (as taught by Far) to include an air conditioner and power distribution monitoring unit (as taught by Hou) to have full control over the cooling via the air conditioner. By utilizing an air conditioner paired with a control unit, would create a redundancy cooling system in case of liquid cooling failure and furthermore, allow users to customize the amount of cooling needed via user defined specification.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farshechian hereafter as, Far (U.S 2016/0330873 A1) in view of Gao (U.S 2022/0408607 A1).
In regards to Claim 3, Far discloses the edge data center as claimed in claim 1, wherein the flow distribution unit comprises a quick coupler (Fig.1, #130/125), and a refrigerant pipe (Fig.1, #117/119); and the refrigerant pipe is connected to the outdoor heat exchange unit (Fig.1, #119/117 is connected to #115).
Far fails to explicitly disclose: Wherein the flow distribution unit comprises a coolant distribution unit, a hose, and the hose is connected to the evaporative liquid cooling cold plate by means of the quick coupler.
However, Gao discloses: Wherein the flow distribution unit (Fig.2, #manifolds ) comprises a coolant distribution unit (Fig.1, #120), a hose (Fig.2, #128), a quick coupler (paragraph [0049], and a refrigerant pipe, and the hose is connected to the evaporative liquid cooling cold plate by means of the quick coupler (Fig.2 and paragraph [0049], each server cold plate #400 is connected via a quick release coupling system via a flexible hose #128, as such the office notes that with the combination of Far in view of Gao, the distribution unit used to provide cooling to the heating element (as taught by Far) would be modified to further include a coolant distribution unit, a hose and quick couplers (as taught by Gao) to allow for cooling multiple heating elements).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the distribution unit used to provide cooling to the heating element (as taught by Far) to further include a coolant distribution unit, a hose and quick couplers (as taught by Gao) to allow for cooling multiple heating elements. By utilizing quick couplers with hoses, would allow for easy replacing and hot swap of electronics without affecting the cooling of other said heat elements.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farshechian hereafter as, Far (U.S 2016/0330873 A1) in view of Hou (CN 207150979 U) and further, in view of Wang (CN 111246713 A).
In regards to Claim 5, Far in view of Hou discloses the edge data center as claimed in claim 2.
Far in view of Hou fail to disclose: Wherein the air-cooled air conditioner is a fluorine pump air-cooled inter-row air conditioner.
However, Wang discloses: Wherein the air-cooled air conditioner is a fluorine pump air-cooled inter-row air conditioner (Fig.1 and abstract and summary of invention which discloses air conditioner placed within the cabinet, as such the office notes that with the combination of Far in view of Hou and Wang, the liquid cooled container comprising an air conditioner (as taught by Far in view of Hou) would be modified to be a fluorine based air condition (as taught by Wang) to reduce the energy usage used to cool the heating elements).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the liquid cooled container comprising an air conditioner (as taught by Far in view of Hou) to be a fluorine based air conditioner (as taught by Wang) to reduce the energy usage used to cool the heating elements. By using a fluorine based system, dramatically increases the efficiency compared to water based cooling, therefore providing a more efficient way of cooling the heating elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cheon (U.S 2004/0008483 A1) – Discloses a liquid cooled container comprising one or more heating elements which are thermally connected to cold plates which are connected to an external heat exchanger.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDEEP S BUTTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4768. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MANDEEP S BUTTAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights