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:
heat rejection unit
technical fluid filtration unit
air conditioning unit
technical fluid treatment unit
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 § 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, 9-11, 13, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Gao (CN113727574A).
Regarding claim 1, Gao discloses a technical fluid system (Fig. 2/6), comprising: a technical fluid circuit comprising one or more technical fluid pumps (pump 232) configured to deliver a technical fluid to a liquid cooling system (cold plate 212 & manifold 213) and an air cooling system (air cooling unit 224); a primary heat exchanger (heat exchanger 231) configured to transfer heat from the technical fluid (fluid in 250) to a cooling fluid (fluid in 225); a heat rejection unit (external cooling unit 225) configured to remove heat from the cooling fluid; and a cooling fluid circuit (see piping from 231, 225, 241) comprising one or more cooling fluid pumps (pump 241) configured to circulate the cooling fluid between the PHEX (231) and the heat rejection unit (225).
Regarding claim 2, Gao discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Gao further discloses the heat rejection unit comprises a cooling tower (cooling tower – Page 7).
Regarding claim 3, Gao discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Gao further discloses the technical fluid system is a modular technical fluid system and wherein the cooling fluid circuit and the technical fluid circuit are each configured to fluidically couple to another respective cooling fluid circuit and technical fluid circuit of another modular technical fluid system (see configuration of Fig. 6, w/ 501,502 connected to each of 504,505).
Regarding claim 9, Gao discloses a data center cooling system (Fig. 2/6), comprising: a liquid cooling system (212,213) comprising one or more liquid cooling connectors (213) configured to fluidically couple to a server heat exchanger (212) of a cabinet; an air cooling system (224) comprising one or more computer room air conditioning (CRAC) units configured to cool supply air (liquid-air heat exchanger, page 8); and one or more technical fluid systems (250) fluidically coupled to the liquid cooling system and the air cooling system, wherein each technical fluid system comprises: a technical fluid circuit comprising one or more technical fluid pumps (232) configured to deliver a technical fluid to the liquid cooling system and the air cooling system; a primary heat exchanger (231) configured to transfer heat from the technical fluid to a cooling fluid; a heat rejection unit (225) configured to remove heat from the cooling fluid; and a cooling fluid circuit comprising one or more cooling fluid pumps (241) configured to circulate the cooling fluid between the PHEX and the heat rejection unit.
Regarding claim 10, Gao discloses the limitations of claim 9, and Gao further discloses the one or more technical fluid systems comprises two or more technical fluid systems (see modular configuration including 501/502/503).
Regarding claim 11, Gao discloses the limitations of claim 10, and Gao further discloses a technical fluid header configured to fluidically couple the liquid cooling system and the air cooling system to the two or more technical fluid systems (see common headers of 501/502/503).
Regarding claim 13, Gao discloses the limitations of claim 10, and Gao further discloses a cooling fluid header configured to fluidically couple the cooling fluid circuits of each of the two or more technical fluid systems (see common headers of 504/505).
Regarding claim 15, Gao discloses (see Fig. 2/6) a method for cooling cabinets of a data center, comprising: delivering, by one or more technical fluid systems (250), a technical fluid to one or more server heat exchangers (212) of a liquid cooling system and one or more computer room air conditioning (224) units of an air cooling system, by at least, for each technical fluid system: circulating, by one or more technical fluid pumps (232) of a technical fluid circuit, the technical fluid between a primary heat exchanger (231) and each of the liquid cooling system and the air cooling system to absorb heat from the one or more SHEXs and the one or more CRAC units; and circulating, by one or more cooling fluid pumps (241) of a cooling fluid circuit, a cooling fluid between the PHEX and a heat rejection unit (225) to transfer heat from the technical fluid to the cooling fluid and remove the heat from the cooling fluid.
Regarding claim 16, Gao discloses the limitations of claim 15, and Gao further discloses discharging, by the one or more CRAC units, cooled supply air (liquid-air heat exchanger, page 8).
Regarding claim 17, Gao discloses the limitations of claim 15, and Gao further discloses the one or more technical fluid systems comprises two or more technical fluid systems (see modular configuration including 501/502/503).
Regarding claim 18, Gao discloses the limitations of claim 15, and Gao further discloses the liquid cooling system and the air cooling system are fluidically coupled to the two or more technical fluid systems via a technical fluid header (see common headers of 501/502/503).
Regarding claim 19, Gao discloses the limitations of claim 17, and Gao further discloses the cooling fluid circuits of each of the two or more technical fluid systems are fluidically coupled via a cooling fluid header (see common headers of 504/505).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (CN113727574A) in view of Magcale (US20230189485A1).
Regarding claim 4, Gao teaches the limitations of claim 3, and Gao does not teach a skid frame configured to support the PHEX, the cooling fluid circuit, the heat rejection unit, and the technical fluid circuit.
Magcale teaches a skid frame (see frame 201; Fig. 2 & ¶[0043]) configured to support the PHEX, the cooling fluid circuit, the heat rejection unit, and the technical fluid circuit (cooling systems - ¶[0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gao to include the skid frame of Magcale to support the cooling systems, in order to reduce installation and construction time (¶[0004-0005]).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (CN113727574A) in view of Magcale (US20230189485A1) and Harrington (US20250130000A1).
Regarding claims 5-6, Gao teaches the limitations of claim 4, and Gao does not teach a technical fluid filtration unit; and a technical fluid treatment unit, wherein the technical fluid filtration unit is configured to provide filtration of less than or equal to 25 micron, and wherein the technical fluid treatment system is configured to maintain a corrosion inhibitor in the technical fluid.
Harrington teaches a technical fluid filtration unit; and a technical fluid treatment unit (ACQ; Fig. 1), wherein the technical fluid filtration unit is configured to provide filtration of less than or equal to 25 micron (1 micron filter - ¶[0114]), and wherein the technical fluid treatment system is configured to maintain a corrosion inhibitor in the technical fluid (¶[0127]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gao to include the filtration and treatment units of Harrington, in order to reduce biological growth and reduce corrosion (¶[0114], ¶[0127]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (CN113727574A).
Regarding claim 7, Gao teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Gao is silent to the technical fluid system has a cooling capacity of at least 2500 kilowatts (kW), however, such a cooling capacity would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, 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). In the instant case, Gao teaches the number and power of electronic components requires increased cooling capacity (see Page 2).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (CN113727574A) in view of Harrington (US20250130000A1).
Regarding claim 12, Gao teaches the limitations of claim 11, and Gao does not teach a technical fluid filtration unit fluidically coupled to the technical fluid header; and a technical fluid treatment unit fluidically coupled to the technical fluid header.
Harrington teaches technical fluid filtration unit (1 micron filter - ¶[0114]), fluidically coupled to the technical fluid system; and a technical fluid treatment unit (ACQ; Fig. 1) fluidically coupled to the technical fluid system (¶[0127]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gao to include the filtration and treatment units of Harrington to the fluid header of Gao, in order to reduce biological growth and reduce corrosion (¶[0114], ¶[0127]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (CN113727574A) in view of Jenkins (US20220144666A1).
Regarding claim 14, Gao teaches the limitations of claim 13, and Gao does not teach a cooling fluid filtration unit fluidically coupled to the cooling fluid header; and a cooling fluid treatment unit fluidically coupled to the cooling fluid header.
Jenkins teaches a cooling fluid filtration unit (112; Fig. 5) fluidically coupled to the cooling fluid system; and a cooling fluid treatment unit (115) fluidically coupled to the cooling fluid system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gao to include the filtration and treatment units of Jenkins to the fluid header of Gao, in order to prevent fouling and undesirable cooling water conditions (¶[0003]).
Claim(s) 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (CN113727574A) in view of Lyon (US20170064874A1).
Regarding claims 8/20, Gao teaches the limitations of claim 1/15, and Gao does not teach the technical fluid comprises a mixture of water and glycol, and wherein the cooling fluid comprises water.
Lyon teaches the technical fluid comprises a mixture of water and glycol (¶[0062]), and wherein the cooling fluid comprises water (¶[0128]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gao to include the fluids of Lyon, as it has been held obvious to provide a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143). In the instant case, as taught by Lyon, water and glycol mixtures for use as a technical fluid and water as a cooling fluid are known to be suitable for the intended purpose.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S RUPPERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9911. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
