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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification uses the term “dagger” throughout instead of “blade”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “dagger” in claims 1, 4, 6-8, and 11 is used to mean “blade,” (as in a server blade housing/receptacle) while the accepted meaning is “a short knife/sword.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. It appears to be a literal translation from foreign documents.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the second quick disconnect". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (US 20180368281 A1).
As to claim 1 (as best understood), Wang discloses: A system (Fig. 1-16) for cooling individual servers in a cabinet comprises:
a cabinet (par. 0050; Fig. 1-2) having at least one shelf (plurality of mounting racks; par. 0050);
at least one envelope 10 (including 106, 116; a plurality of server housings 10 sequentially mounted from high to low; par. 0050) disposed on the at least one shelf;
a blade 104 (see Fig. 14) for receiving a server (par. 0050, 0053) therein disposed in the at least one envelope 10;
a first tank 4 for containing a fluid is disposed in the cabinet and is in fluid communication with the at least one envelope (see Fig. 1-2, 14-16; fluid flows into envelope 10 through 106 and out through 116);
a second tank 1 for containing the fluid is disposed in the cabinet and is in fluid communication with the at least one envelope (see Fig. 1-2, 14-16); the envelope 10 being disposed between the first tank 4 and the second tank 1; the fluid flowing from the first tank 4 through the envelope 10 (in through 106) to the blade 104 (via spray chamber 108) and from the blade to the envelope (from internal area 112 of dager 114 and out through 116 of the envelope 10) to the second tank 1 as a function of gravity (par. 0056; Abstract); and
a pump 2, the pump transporting fluid from the second tank to the first tank (par. 0048).
As to claim 2 (as best understood), Wang discloses: further comprising a heat sink 3 disposed between the envelope and the second tank (see Fig. 1-2; par. 0048).
As to claim 3 (as best understood), Wang discloses: wherein the first tank is disposed above the second tank (see Fig. 1-2).
As to claim 8 (as best understood), Wang discloses: further comprising a server (at 112; par. 0053) selectively disposed within the blade.
As to claim 13 (as best understood), Wang discloses: further comprising a suction line 165 (Fig. 6; par. 0057) in fluid communication with the envelope and the second tank, the suction line removing the fluid in the envelope upon removal of the server from the envelope (when the server is removed, oil inlet 161 is closed; par. 0057, and then telescoping oil outlet 165 is retracted; par. 0057; thus after inlet 161 is closed, no more oil enters server, and some oil will drain through 165 via gravity siphon/suction until 165 is retracted).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 4, 6-7, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20180368281 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Attlesey (US 20110134604 A1).
As to claim 4 (as best understood), Wang discloses: further comprising a blade supply pipe 6 (Fig. 2) in fluid communication with the first tank, second tank and the at least one envelope, the blade supply pipe conveying the fluid between the first tank and the second tank; and a blade drain pipe 8 in fluid communication with the at least one envelope and the second tank.
Wang does not explicitly disclose:
the blade drain pipe being in fluid communication with the at least one envelope at a position along the at least one envelope higher than a position at which the blade supply pipe is in fluid communication with the at least one envelope.
However, Attlesey discloses:
the blade drain pipe 52b, 53b (par. 0056, 0071; Fig. 3, 5) being in fluid communication with the at least one envelope 12 at a position along the at least one envelope higher (see claim 11; Fig. 3, 5) than a position at which the blade supply pipe 52a, 53a is in fluid communication with the at least one envelope;
in order to submerge the server components (par. 0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang as suggested by Attlesey, e.g., providing:
the blade drain pipe being in fluid communication with the at least one envelope at a position along the at least one envelope higher than a position at which the blade supply pipe is in fluid communication with the at least one envelope;
in order to submerge the server components.
Additionally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to claims 6 and 7 (as best understood), Wang in view of Attlesey does not disclose: further comprising a first/second rack quick connect for connecting the blade drainpipe/supply pipe in fluid communication with the at least one envelope.
However, Attlesey discloses quick disconnect inlet/outlet valves 52a, 52b to connect to the blade drainpipe/supply pipe manifolds 53b, 53a (par. 0056);
in order to allow change out of a failed server (par. 0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang as suggested by Attlesey, e.g., providing:
further comprising a first/second rack quick connect for connecting the blade drainpipe/supply pipe in fluid communication with the at least one envelope;
in order to allow change out of a failed server.
As to claim 9 (as best understood), Wang does not disclose:
a first quick connect extending from the envelope in fluid communication with an interior of the envelope.
However, Attlesey discloses:
a first quick connect 52b (Fig. 5; par. 0056) extending from the envelope 12 in fluid communication with an interior of the envelope;
in order to allow change out of a failed server (par. 0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang as suggested by Attlesey, e.g., providing:
a first quick connect extending from the envelope in fluid communication with an interior of the envelope;
in order to allow change out of a failed server.
As to claim 10 (as best understood), Wang in view of Attlesey discloses:
a second quick connect 52a (Fig. 5; Attlesey) extending from the envelope 12 in fluid communication with an interior of the envelope; the first quick disconnect 52b extending at a position along the envelope above a position the second quick disconnect extends from the envelope (see Fig. 5; claim 11).
As to claim 11 (as best understood), Wang in view of Attlesey does not explicitly disclose:
a first rack quick connect for connecting the blade drain pipe in fluid communication with the at least one envelope; a second rack quick connect for connecting the blade supply pipe in fluid communication with the at least one envelope; a first quick connect extending from the envelope in fluid communication with an interior of the envelope and selectively connecting to the first rack quick connect; a second quick connect extending from the envelope in fluid communication with an interior of the envelope; the first quick disconnect extending at a position along the envelope above a position the second quick disconnect extends from the envelope and selectively engages the second rack quick connect.
However, Attlesey further discloses:
a first rack quick connect (corresponding to 53b – “quick disconnect valves”; par. 0056; Fig. 5) for connecting the blade drain pipe 53b in fluid communication with the at least one envelope 12; a second rack quick connect (corresponding to 53a – “quick disconnect valves”; par. 0056; Fig. 5) for connecting the blade supply pipe 53a in fluid communication with the at least one envelope; a first quick connect 52b (see par. 0056) extending from the envelope 12 in fluid communication with an interior of the envelope and selectively connecting to the first rack quick connect; a second quick connect 52a (see par. 0056) extending from the envelope in fluid communication with an interior of the envelope; the first quick disconnect extending at a position along the envelope above (see Fig. 5 and claim 11) a position the second quick disconnect extends from the envelope and selectively engages the second rack quick connect;
in order to allow change out of a failed server (par. 0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang as suggested by Attlesey, e.g., providing:
a first rack quick connect for connecting the blade drain pipe in fluid communication with the at least one envelope; a second rack quick connect for connecting the blade supply pipe in fluid communication with the at least one envelope; a first quick connect extending from the envelope in fluid communication with an interior of the envelope and selectively connecting to the first rack quick connect; a second quick connect extending from the envelope in fluid communication with an interior of the envelope; the first quick disconnect extending at a position along the envelope above a position the second quick disconnect extends from the envelope and selectively engages the second rack quick connect;
in order to allow change out of a failed server.
As to claim 12 (as best understood), Wang in view of Attlesey discloses:
The system of claim 11, further comprising a cable connect 105 (Fig. 14; Wang) extending into the envelope (into the external face of envelope 10) at a position above a position the second quick disconnect (corresponding to the lower pipe 116 of Wang, modified with a quick disconnect as in Attlesely above) extends from the envelope.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20180368281 A1) in view of Attlesey (US 20110134604 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Shelnutt (US 20150060009 A1).
As to claim 5 (as best understood), Wang in view of Attlesey does not explicitly disclose:
a cable communicating with server, the cable being disposed above the envelope.
However, Shelnutt discloses:
a cable 305, 427 (Fig. 5) communicating with server 300, the cable being disposed above the envelope (of server 300);
in order to provide data and/or power cables (par. 0074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang and Attlesey as suggested by Shelnutt, e.g., providing:
a cable communicating with server, the cable being disposed above the envelope;
in order to provide data and/or power cables.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Broderick (US 20190045661 A1), Eckberg (US 20160066480 A1) and Tufty (US 20190090383 A1) disclose pumping liquid coolant and gravity driven flow paths to cool servers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB R CRUM whose telephone number is (571)270-7665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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) 270-1985. 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.
/JACOB R CRUM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights