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 Objections
Claims 9, 11, 13, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 Ln.4: it is believed that the clause “with a cooling distribution unit” should be amended to recite “with the cooling distribution unit” since it is believed that it is supposed to be in reference to the cooling distribution unit recited in line 2 of the claim.
Claim 9 Ln.7: the clause “from the processor” should be amended “from a processor” for antecedent reasons.
Claim 9 Ln.8: the clause “having a processor” should be amended to recite “having the processor” for antecedent reasons.
Claim 11: the claim numbering should be amended from claim “1” to claim “11” in order to correct the typographical error (i.e., as currently presented, the claim numbering is shown as claim 1 instead of claim 11).
Claim 13: the claim numbering should be amended from claim “2” to claim “13” in order to correct the typographical error (i.e., as currently presented, the claim numbering is shown as claim 2 instead of claim 13).
Claim 17 Ln.5: the clause “with a cooling distribution unit” should be amended to recite “with the cooling distribution unit” for antecedent reasons (i.e., it is believed that the clause is supposed to refer to the cooling distribution unit recited in line 4 of the claim).
Claim 17 Ln.8: the clause “from the processor” should be amended to recite “from a processor” for antecedent reasons.
Claim 17 Ln.9: the clause “a processor” should be amended to recite “the processor” for antecedent reasons.
The Office notes that the above objections are a non-exhaustive list, and thus requests Applicant’s cooperation with reviewing the claims and correcting ALL remaining informalities present in the claims, but not made of record above. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9-10, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chu (US 20050068728).
Regarding claim 1, Chu discloses (Fig.5):
A system comprising: a cooling distribution unit ([0019]); an information handling system (See Fig.5) including: at least one electronic component (200, 210, and/or 510) disposed within a reliable zone (See Figure Below) away from any potential leaks (See Figure Below); and a cooling plate (530 and 540) in fluid communication with the cooling distribution unit ([0019]) (Fig.5, [0019], and [0025]: the CDU will allow coolant to flow to 540 which will absorb heat from 530 in order to cool 510, and thus 530/540 is in fluid communication with the CDU), wherein the cooling distribution unit ([0019]) selectively circulates (Fig.5, [0019], and [0025]: CDU will selectively supply liquid cooling to 540 based on whether or not the device is plugged in or not) liquid coolant ([0025]: "A liquid coolant line 545"- the liquid coolant running through 545 and the CDU will define the "liquid coolant") through the cooling plate (530 and 540) and wherein the cooling plate (530 and 540) is disposed in an unreliable zone (See Figure Below) that is likely to experience one or more leaks (See Figure Below).
See next page→
PNG
media_image1.png
865
888
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Chu discloses (Fig.5):
A system, comprising: a cooling distribution unit ([0019]) within an unreliable zone (See Figure of Claim 1) that is likely to experience liquid leaks (See Figure of Claim 1); a cooling plate (530 and 540) in fluid communication with a cooling distribution unit ([0019]) within the unreliable zone (See Figure of Claim 1) (Fig.5, [0019], and [0025]: the CDU will allow coolant to flow to 540 which will absorb heat from 530 in order to cool 510, and thus 530/540 is in fluid communication with the CDU), wherein the cooling distribution unit (530 and 540) selectively circulates (Fig.5, [0019], and [0025]: CDU will selectively supply liquid cooling to 540 based on whether or not the device is plugged in or not) liquid coolant ([0025]: "A liquid coolant line 545"- the liquid coolant running through 545 and the CDU will define the "liquid coolant") through the cooling plate (530 and 540) wherein the cooling plate (530 and 540) is spaced apart a distance from the processor (510) (Fig.5: 510 is separated at a distance from both 530 and 540); and an information handling system (See Fig.5) having a processor (510) within a reliable zone (See Figure of Claim 1) that is substantially free of liquid leaks (See Figure of Claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Chu discloses (Fig.5):
A system comprising: a reliable zone (See Figure of Claim 1) that is substantially free of liquid leaks (See Figure of Claim 1); an unreliable zone (See Figure of Claim 1) that is likely to experience liquid leaks (See Figure of Claim 1); a cooling distribution unit ([0019]) within the unreliable zone (See Figure of Claim 1: the CDU will be mechanically and fluidly coupled to 540, which is in the unreliable zone, and thus the CDU, at least a portion thereof, will also be in the unreliable zone); a cooling plate (530 and 540) in fluid communication with a cooling distribution unit ([0019]) within the unreliable zone (See Figure of Claim 1, Fig.5, [0019], and [0025]: the CDU will allow coolant to flow to 540 which will absorb heat from 530 in order to cool 510, and thus 530/540 is in fluid communication with the CDU, which occurs in the unreliable zone), wherein the cooling distribution unit ([0019]) selectively circulates (Fig.5, [0019], and [0025]: CDU will selectively supply liquid cooling to 540 based on whether or not the device is plugged in or not) liquid coolant ([0025]: "A liquid coolant line 545"- the liquid coolant running through 545 and the CDU will define the "liquid coolant") through the cooling plate (530 and 540) wherein the cooling plate (540) is spaced apart a distance from the processor (510) (Fig.5: 510 is spaced at a distance from both 530 and 540); an information handling system (See Fig.5) having a processor (510) and a memory (200 and/or 210) within the reliable zone (See Figure of Claim 1); and a heat pipe (any one or more of 525a, b, and/or c) connecting the processor (510) to the cooling plate (530 and 540) and extending between the reliable zone (See Figure of Claim 1) and the unreliable zone (See Figure of Claim 1) (Fig.5 and See Figure of Claim 1: 525a, b, and c extend between both the reliable zone and the unreliable zone).
Regarding claim 2, Chu further discloses:
A heat pipe (525a,b, and/or c) connecting the at least one electronic component (200, 210, and/or 510) to the cooling plate (530 and 540), wherein the heat pipe (525a,b, and/or c) extends between the reliable zone (See Figure of Claim 1) and the unreliable zone (See Figure of Claim 1) (Fig.5 and See Figure of Claim 1: 525a, b, and c extend between both the reliable zone and the unreliable zone).
Regarding claims 7 and 15 Chu further discloses:
Wherein the reliable zone (See Figure of Claim 1) is located within a housing (500) of the information handling system (See Fig.5) and the unreliable zone (See Figure of Claim 1) is located outside of the housing (500) of the information handling system (See Fig.5) (See Figure of Claim 1: there is a portion of the unreliable zone that is outside of the housing of 500, and thus the unreliable zone is also outside of 500).
Regarding claim 10, Chu further discloses:
A heat pipe (525a,b, and/or c) connecting the processor (510) to the cooling plate (530 and 540) and extending between the reliable zone (See Figure of Claim 1) and the unreliable zone (See Figure of Claim 1) (Fig.5 and See Figure of Claim 1: 525a, b, and c extend between both the reliable zone and the unreliable zone).
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.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu (US 20050068728) in view of Kulkarni (US 20180004259).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Chu further discloses:
A first fan (160) within the reliable zone (See Figure of Claim 1) to provide airflow (Fig.5: the arrows going from 160 to 220).
However, Chu does not explicitly disclose:
A first fan within the reliable zone to provide airflow across the heat pipe.
Kulkarni however teaches (Fig.2):
A first fan (208) to provide airflow across the pipe (204) (Fig.2, [0040], and [0046]: since 208 provides an airflow across 100, it will also provide an airflow across 204 as well since 204 is provided between 208 and 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Kulkarni to modify the device of Chu such that it has a first fan within the reliable zone that provides airflow across the heat pipe (i.e., provide a plurality of fans in the reliable zone and calling the group the claimed "first fan"), as respectively claimed in claims 3 and 11, in order to further improve the overall heat dissipation capabilities due to the increased number of components being utilized to cool the at least one electronic component and the heat pipe.
Claims 4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu (US 20050068728) and Kulkarni (US 20180004259) as applied to claims 3 and 11 above, and further in view of Clark (US 20230413474).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, modified Chu does not teach:
A second fan within the unreliable zone to provide airflow across the cooling plate.
Clark however teaches (Fig.1-2):
Exhaust fans (24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Clark to further modify the device of modified Chu such that it has an exhaust fan that is provided in the unreliable zone such that the exhaust fans defines a second fan within the unreliable zone that provides airflow across the cooling plate, as respectively claimed in claims 4 and 12, in order to further optimize the cooling of the cooling plate since there will be a more active airflow path that can direct air across the cooling plate in order to further improve the cooling plate due to the increased number of heat dissipation components being utilized to direct cooling air.
Regarding claim 13, Clark further teaches:
A leak detector (32) on a cold plate (30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Clark to further modify the device of modified Chu such that it has a leak detector that is within the unreliable zone (e.g., provide the leak detector of Clark on the cooling plate of Chu, which is provided in the unreliable zone), as claimed, in order to provide an active means of sensing and detecting leaks within the unreliable zone, and thus improving the overall usability of the device.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu (US 20050068728) in view of Clark (US 20230413474).
Regarding claim 5, Chu does not disclose:
A leak detector within the unreliable zone.
Clark however teaches (Fig.2):
A leak detector (32) on a cold plate (30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Clark to modify the device of Chu such that it has a leak detector that is within the unreliable zone (e.g., provide the leak detector of Clark on the cooling plate of Chu, which is provided in the unreliable zone), as claimed, in order to provide an active means of sensing and detecting leaks within the unreliable zone, and thus improving the overall usability of the device.
Claims 6, 14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu (US 20050068728) in view of Sun (US 20230225078).
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 18, Chu further discloses:
Wherein the reliable zone (See Figure of Claim 1) and the unreliable zone (See Figure of Claim 1) are located within the information handling system (See Fig.5) (See Figure of Claim 1: the reliable zone is within 500 and since a portion of the unreliable zone is also within 500, the unreliable zone is also within 500, and thus both the reliable and unreliable zones are within the information handling system).
However, Chu does not disclose:
Wherein the reliable zone and the unreliable zone are located within the information handling system and separated by a barrier.
Sun however teaches (Fig.2):
A barrier (See Figure Below) that separates the reliable zone (270) from the unreliable zone (250).
See next page→
PNG
media_image2.png
796
635
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Sun to modify the device of Chu such that it has a barrier that separates the reliable zone from the unreliable zone within the information handling system, as respectively claimed in claims 6, 14, and 18, in order to better to protect the at least one electronic component from liquid damage due to the barrier preventing liquid from leaking onto the at least one electronic component.
Regarding claim 19, Chu further discloses:
Wherein the reliable zone (See Figure of Claim 1) is located within a housing (500) of the information handling system (See Fig.5) and the unreliable zone (See Figure of Claim 1) is located outside of the housing (500) of the information handling system (See Fig.5) (See Figure of Claim 1: there is a portion of the unreliable zone that is outside of the housing of 500, and thus the unreliable zone is also outside of 500).
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu (US 20050068728) in view of Chiu (CN 116390423).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Chu further discloses:
Wherein the reliable zone (See Figure of Claim 1) is located within a housing (500) of the information handling system (See Fig.5) within a first rack ([0025]).
However, Chu does not disclose:
The unreliable zone is located outside of the housing of the information handling system within a second rack.
Chiu however teaches (Figs.1-2):
The CDU (7) is located outside of the housing ([n0038]: the housing of each of the servers will define the “server”) of the information handling system ([n0038]: the servers will define the “information handling system”) within a second rack (2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Chiu to modify the device of Chu such that the CDU is provided in a second rack that is provided behind the first rack and outside of the housing of the information handling system so that the unreliable zone is located outside of the housing of the information handling system within the second rack (i.e., since the CDU of Chu is designated to be within the unreliable zone, making the above combination in view of Chiu will result in a second rack that holds the CDU to be coupled to a main rack that has the servers), as respectively claimed in claims 8 and 16, in order to better protect the information handling system from liquid damage (i.e., by providing the information handling system and the CDU in two different racks, one can further ensure that if the CDU does leak that the leak does not spread to and damage the information handling system).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu (US 20050068728) and Sun (US 20230225078) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Chiu (CN 116390423).
Regarding claim 20, Chu further discloses:
Wherein the reliable zone (See Figure of Claim 1) is located within a housing (500) of the information handling system (See Fig.5) within a first rack ([0025]).
However, neither Chu nor Sun teaches:
The unreliable zone is located outside of the housing of the information handling system within a second rack.
Chiu however teaches (Figs.1-2):
See next page→
The CDU (7) is located outside of the housing ([n0038]: the housing of each of the servers will define the “server”) of the information handling system ([n0038]: the servers will define the “information handling system”) within a second rack (2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Chiu to further modify the device of modified Chu such that the CDU of Chu is provided in a second rack that is provided behind the first rack and outside of the housing of the information handling system so that the unreliable zone is also located outside of the housing of the information handling system within the second rack (i.e., since the CDU of Chu is designated to be within the unreliable zone, making the above combination in view of Chiu will result in a second rack that holds the CDU to be coupled to a main rack that has the servers), as claimed, in order to better protect the information handling system from liquid damage (i.e., by providing the information handling system and the CDU in two different racks, one can further ensure that if the CDU does leak that the leak does not spread to and damage the information handling system).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20260143628: teaches the use of a leak detection sensor.
US 20250389488: teaches the use of exhaust fans in a server rack.
US 20250358975: teaches a device that has a reliable zone and an unreliable zone for cooling.
US 20250344346: teaches the use of a leak detection sensor.
US 12225692: teaches the use of exhaust fans in a server blade.
US 20230320031: teaches how servers can be stored in one rack and providing a separate rack for just the CDU.
US 20230147728: teaches what a CDU rack looks like.
US 7903404: teaches a cooling system that has a reliable zone and an unreliable zone.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/STEPHEN S SUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights