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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“refrigeration unit” in claim 1.
“dry cooling unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-16, 28 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.
The term “relatively cool condition” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively cool condition” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Further mentions in claims 9-11.
The term “relatively warm condition” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively cool condition” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the pressure". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the mode of operation". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is unclear if the mode of operation refers to the previous mentioned modes.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "a first cooling fluid". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is unclear if the cooling fluid is the same as the previously claimed cooling fluid.
The term “relatively cool condition” in claim 25 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively cool condition” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “relatively warm condition” in claim 28 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively cool condition” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "a first cooling fluid". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is unclear if the cooling fluid is the same as the previously claimed cooling fluid.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the liquid cooled equipment rack". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “relatively cool condition” in claim 28 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively cool condition” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “relatively warm condition” in claim 28 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively cool condition” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-10, 17-18, 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kashirajima (US 20090201645), hereinafter referred to as Kashirajima.
Re claim 1, 17, 24 and 26, Kashirajima teaches a cooling distribution unit, comprising:
a refrigeration unit (e.g. 68) configured to be coupled to a dry cooling unit (76), the refrigeration unit being configured to receive a first cooling fluid in relatively cool condition from the dry cooling unit and to output the first cooling fluid in relatively warm condition to the dry cooling unit for cooling (inherent function; e.g. ¶ 66, “The working electric power for the refrigerator 68 can be reduced by connecting the refrigerator 68 to a cooling tower 76 different from the above described cooling tower 38 and using it as a cold heat source of the refrigerator 68. The structure of the cooling tower 76 is the same as that of the above described cooling tower 38.”);
a first control valve (59) coupled to the refrigeration unit, the first control valve being configured to output a first portion of a second cooling fluid at a first temperature (implicit); and
a second control valve (61) coupled to the refrigeration unit, the second control valve being configured to output a second portion of the second cooling fluid at a second temperature (implicit).
Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Re claim 2 and 18, Kashirajima teaches the cooling distribution unit of claim 1, further comprising a pump (e.g. ¶ 108, “but the refrigerant can be transferred with refrigerant pumps instead of being naturally circulated by providing the refrigerant pumps not illustrated in the supply piping 48 of the circulation line 40”) on a return line (48) of the second portion of the second cooling fluid, the pump being configured to control a pressure of the second portion of the second cooling fluid outputted by the second control valve (the examiner notes that is an inherent function of a pump to control a pressure and 48 is downstream of 61). Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Re claim 8 and 27, Kashirajima teaches the cooling distribution unit of claim 1. Kashirajima teaches the limitation of further comprising a heat exchanger (e.g. 54) disposed between the refrigeration unit and the first control valve and the second control valve (see Fig 3). Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Re claim 9, Kashirajima teaches the cooling distribution unit of claim 8. Kashirajima teaches the limitation of wherein the second cooling fluid is returned to the heat exchanger in a relatively warm condition, the heat exchanger being configured to cool the second cooling fluid (see Fig 3; implicit function).
Re claim 10, Kashirajima teaches the cooling distribution unit of claim 8. Kashirajima teaches the limitation of wherein the heat exchanger is coupled to the refrigeration unit, the heat exchanger being configured to receive a third cooling fluid (fluid of 70) in relatively cool condition from the refrigeration unit and to output the third cooling fluid in relatively warm condition to the refrigeration unit for cooling (see Fig 3; implicit function see ¶ 66).
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(s) 3 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashirajima, in view of Popov (US 20140196494), hereinafter referred to as Popov.
Re claim 3 and 20, Kashirajima teaches the cooling distribution unit of claim 2 and 18. Kashirajima does not teach the limitation of further comprising an ejector in fluid communication with the pump to assist in controlling the pressure of the second portion of the second cooling fluid outputted by the second control valve. However, Popov teaches a coolant system comprising an ejector (2) in fluid communication with a pump (5) to assist in controlling the pressure of a second portion of a second cooling fluid outputted by the second control valve (4). Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kashirajima and integrated further comprising an ejector in fluid communication with the pump to assist in controlling the pressure of the second portion of the second cooling fluid outputted by the second control valve, as taught by Popov, in order to increase the efficiency (see Popov ¶ 5). Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claim(s) 4-7, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashirajima.
Re claim 4 and 21, Kashirajima teaches the cooling distribution unit of claim 1 and 18. Kashirajima does not teach the limitation of wherein the pressure of the second portion of the second cooling fluid is less than atmospheric pressure. However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that coolant pressure is a recognize result effective variable. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the pressure of the second portion of the second cooling fluid less than the atmospheric pressure, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II). Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Re claim 5 and 22, Kashirajima teaches the cooling distribution unit of claim 2 and 18. Kashirajima teaches the limitation of comprising a controller (e.g. 71) configured to selectively control the first control valve, the second control valve (see Fig 3). Kashirajima does not teach the limitation of the controller configured to selectively control a pump. However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the fact using a controller to selectively control a pump, for the purpose of properly controlling the pump, falls within the realm of common knowledge. Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kashirajima and integrated the controller configured to selectively control a pump, for the purpose of properly controlling the pump. Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Re claim 6 and 23, Kashirajima teaches the cooling distribution unit of claim 5 and 22. Kashirajima does not teach the limitation of wherein the controller further is configured to selectively control a compressor of the refrigeration unit to achieve at least one of an economization mode, a mechanical mode, or a hybrid mode of operation. However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the fact using a controller to selectively control a compressor of the refrigeration unit to achieve at least one of an economization mode, a mechanical mode, or a hybrid mode of operation, for the purpose of properly controlling the compressor, falls within the realm of common knowledge. Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kashirajima and integrated the controller configured to selectively control a compressor of the refrigeration unit to achieve at least one of an economization mode, a mechanical mode, or a hybrid mode of operation, for the purpose of properly controlling the compressor. Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Re claim 7, Kashirajima teaches the cooling distribution unit of claim 6. Kashirajima teaches the limitation of further comprising at least one temperature sensor (67) in communication with the controller, the controller further being configured to determine the mode of operation based at least in part on an input signal from the at least one temperature sensor (e.g. ¶ 67, “and temperature sensors 65 and 67 are provided at a cooling tower outlet port (refrigerant liquid side) and a heat exchanger outlet port (refrigerant liquid side). The measurement results of the respective temperature sensors 63, 65 and 67 are sequentially input in a parallel control part 71, and the parallel control part 71 controls the respective valves 59, 61 and 69 based on the measurement result. Thereby, the parallel control mechanism is formed. The temperature sensors 65 and 67 are provided at the cooling tower outlet port and the heat exchanger outlet port, but pressure sensors (not illustrated) which measure the pressure of the refrigerant flowing in the piping can be provided, and both the liquid temperature sensors 65 and 67 and the pressure sensors may be provided”).
Claim(s) 11-12, 15-16, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashirajima, in view of Kirkman (US 20220186944), hereinafter referred to as Kirkman.
Re claim 11, Kashirajima teaches the cooling distribution unit of claim 1. Kashirajima does not explicitly teach the limitation of wherein the refrigeration unit includes a condenser, a valve in fluid communication with the condenser, an evaporator in fluid communication with the valve, and a compressor in fluid communication with the evaporator and the condenser, the condenser being configured to receive the first cooling fluid in relatively cool condition from the dry cooling unit and to output the first cooling fluid in relatively warm condition to the dry cooling unit. However, Kirkman teaches a cooling system comprising a refrigeration unit (106) includes a condenser (130), a valve (132) in fluid communication with the condenser, an evaporator (134) in fluid communication with the valve, and a compressor (128) in fluid communication with the evaporator and the condenser, the condenser being configured to receive a first cooling fluid (fluid in 102) in relatively cool condition from a dry cooling unit (110) and to output the first cooling fluid in relatively warm condition to the dry cooling unit (see Fig 1). Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kashirajima and integrated wherein the refrigeration unit includes a condenser, a valve in fluid communication with the condenser, an evaporator in fluid communication with the valve, and a compressor in fluid communication with the evaporator and the condenser, the condenser being configured to receive the first cooling fluid in relatively cool condition from the dry cooling unit and to output the first cooling fluid in relatively warm condition to the dry cooling unit, as taught by Kirkman, in order to increase the efficiency (see Kirkman ¶ 4).
Re claim 12, Kashirajima teaches the cooling distribution unit of claim 1. Kashirajima does not explicitly teach the limitation of further comprising at least one valve positioned between the refrigeration unit and the dry cooling unit, the at least one valve being configured to control an amount of first cooling fluid flowing to and from the dry cooling unit. However, Kirkman teaches a cooling system comprising a refrigeration unit (106) includes a condenser (130), a valve (132) in fluid communication with the condenser, an evaporator (134) in fluid communication with the valve, and a compressor (128) in fluid communication with the evaporator and the condenser, the condenser being configured to receive a first cooling fluid (fluid in 102) in relatively cool condition from a dry cooling unit (110) and to output the first cooling fluid in relatively warm condition to the dry cooling unit (see Fig 1) and at least one valve (118) positioned between the refrigeration unit and the dry cooling unit, the at least one valve being configured to control an amount of first cooling fluid flowing to and from the dry cooling unit (inherent). Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kashirajima and integrated at least one valve positioned between the refrigeration unit and the dry cooling unit, the at least one valve being configured to control an amount of first cooling fluid flowing to and from the dry cooling unit, as taught by Kirkman, in order to increase the efficiency (see Kirkman ¶ 4).
Re claim 15, Kashirajima teaches the cooling distribution unit of claim 1. Kashirajima does not explicitly teach the limitation of wherein a return line of the first portion of the second cooling fluid is coupled to a three-way valve of a supply line of the first portion of the second cooling fluid. However, Kirkman teaches a cooling system comprising a refrigeration unit (106) includes a condenser (130), a valve (132) in fluid communication with the condenser, an evaporator (134) in fluid communication with the valve, and a compressor (128) in fluid communication with the evaporator and the condenser, the condenser being configured to receive a first cooling fluid (fluid in 102) in relatively cool condition from a dry cooling unit (110) and to output the first cooling fluid in relatively warm condition to the dry cooling unit (see Fig 1) and wherein a return line (line coupled to 118 coming from 122) of a first portion of a second cooling fluid (fluid in 102) is coupled to a three-way valve (118) of a supply line of the first portion of the second cooling fluid (see Fig 1). Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kashirajima and integrated wherein a return line of the first portion of the second cooling fluid is coupled to a three-way valve of a supply line of the first portion of the second cooling fluid, as taught by Kirkman, in order to increase the efficiency (see Kirkman ¶ 4).
Re claim 16, Kashirajima teaches the cooling distribution unit of claim 1. Kashirajima does not explicitly teach the limitation of wherein a return line of the first portion of the second cooling fluid is coupled to a three-way valve of a supply line of the first portion of the second cooling fluid. However, Kirkman teaches a cooling system comprising a refrigeration unit (106) includes a condenser (130), a valve (132) in fluid communication with the condenser, an evaporator (134) in fluid communication with the valve, and a compressor (128) in fluid communication with the evaporator and the condenser, the condenser being configured to receive a first cooling fluid (fluid in 102) in relatively cool condition from a dry cooling unit (110) and to output the first cooling fluid in relatively warm condition to the dry cooling unit (see Fig 1) and wherein a return line (line coupled to 118 coming from 122) of a second portion of a second cooling fluid (fluid in 102) is coupled to a three-way valve (118) of a supply line of the first portion of the second cooling fluid (see Fig 1). Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kashirajima and integrated wherein a return line of the first portion of the second cooling fluid is coupled to a three-way valve of a supply line of the first portion of the second cooling fluid, as taught by Kirkman, in order to increase the efficiency (see Kirkman ¶ 4).
Re claim 28, Kashirajima teaches a cooling distribution unit, comprising:
a refrigeration unit (e.g. 68) configured to be coupled to a dry cooling unit (76), the refrigeration unit including fluid for 76) in relatively cool condition from the dry cooling unit and to output the first cooling fluid in relatively warm condition to the dry cooling unit (inherent function; e.g. ¶ 66, “The working electric power for the refrigerator 68 can be reduced by connecting the refrigerator 68 to a cooling tower 76 different from the above described cooling tower 38 and using it as a cold heat source of the refrigerator 68. The structure of the cooling tower 76 is the same as that of the above described cooling tower 38.”);
a heat exchanger (e.g. 54) coupled to the refrigeration unit (e.g. Fig 3), the heat exchanger being configured to receive a second cooling fluid (fluid pump by 74) in relatively cool condition from
a first control valve (59) coupled to the heat exchanger, the first control valve being configured to output a first portion of a third cooling fluid (fluid in 60) from the heat exchanger at a first temperature (implicit); and
a second control valve (61) coupled to the heat exchanger, the second control valve being configured to output a second portion of the third cooling fluid from the heat exchanger at a second temperature (implicit);
a pump (e.g. ¶ 108, “but the refrigerant can be transferred with refrigerant pumps instead of being naturally circulated by providing the refrigerant pumps not illustrated in the supply piping 48 of the circulation line 40”) on a return line (48) of the liquid cooled equipment rack (28), the pump being configured to control a pressure of the second portion of the second cooling fluid outputted by the second control valve (the examiner notes that is an inherent function of a pump to control a pressure and 48 is downstream of 61).
a pump coupled to a return side, the pump being configured to control a pressure of the second portion of the third cooling fluid outputted by the second control valve.
Kashirajima does not explicitly teach the limitation of wherein the refrigeration unit includes a condenser, a valve in fluid communication with the condenser, an evaporator in fluid communication with the valve, and a compressor in fluid communication with the evaporator and the condenser, the condenser being configured to receive the first cooling fluid in relatively cool condition from the dry cooling unit and to output the first cooling fluid in relatively warm condition to the dry cooling unit. However, Kirkman teaches a cooling system comprising a refrigeration unit (106) includes a condenser (130), a valve (132) in fluid communication with the condenser, an evaporator (134) in fluid communication with the valve, and a compressor (128) in fluid communication with the evaporator and the condenser, the condenser being configured to receive a first cooling fluid (fluid in 102) in relatively cool condition from a dry cooling unit (110) and to output the first cooling fluid in relatively warm condition to the dry cooling unit (see Fig 1). Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kashirajima and integrated wherein the refrigeration unit includes a condenser, a valve in fluid communication with the condenser, an evaporator in fluid communication with the valve, and a compressor in fluid communication with the evaporator and the condenser, the condenser being configured to receive the first cooling fluid in relatively cool condition from the dry cooling unit and to output the first cooling fluid in relatively warm condition to the dry cooling unit, as taught by Kirkman, in order to increase the efficiency (see Kirkman ¶ 4).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to couple the second fluid to the evaporator since cooling is intended for the second fluid, hence at the at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kashirajima, as modified, and used the evaporator to cool the second fluid as claimed, since is well known evaporators are used for their cooling capacity.
Claim(s) 13-14, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashirajima, in view of Ikeda (US 20220373233), hereinafter referred to as Ikeda.
Re claim 13-14 and 19, Kashirajima teaches the cooling distribution unit of claim 1 and 18. Kashirajima does not teach the limitation of further comprising a first pump on a supply line of the first portion of the second cooling fluid, and a second pump on a return line of the second portion of the second cooling fluid, the first pump being configured to control a pressure of the first portion of the second fluid and the second pump being configured to control a pressure of the second portion of the second cooling fluid. However, Ikeda teaches a coolant system (Fig 10) comprising a first pump (51a) on a supply line (line where 51a is) of the first portion of the second cooling fluid (Fig 10), and a second pump (51b) on a return line (line where 51b is) of the second portion of the second cooling fluid (Fig 10), the first pump being configured to control a pressure of the first portion of the second fluid output the first portion of the second cooling fluid and the second pump being configured to control a pressure of the second portion of the second cooling fluid to output the second portion of the second cooling fluid (Fig 10). Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kashirajima and integrated a first pump on a supply line of the first portion of the second cooling fluid, and a second pump on a return line of the second portion of the second cooling fluid, the first pump being configured to control a pressure of the first portion of the second fluid output the first portion of the second cooling fluid and the second pump being configured to control a pressure of the second portion of the second cooling fluid to output the second portion of the second cooling fluid, as taught by Ikeda, in order to increase the efficiency (see Ikeda ¶ 49). Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 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 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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 3/5/2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763