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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed 12/2/2024 is being considered by the examiner
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 15, 17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 15, 17, and 20 recite, "the computer cluster." The examiner suggests, "the computing cluster" in line with what is presented in claims 1, 11, and 20.
Claims 5 and 15 recite, "the estimated propagation rate." The examiner suggests, "an estimated propagation rate."
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the applicant has provided evidence that the applicant intends the term "computer readable storage medium" to include non-statutory matter. The applicant describes a computer-readable storage medium as including open ended language and thus it is reasonable to interpret it to include all possible mediums, including non-statutory mediums (see paragraph 0006). The words "storage" and/or "recording" are insufficient to convey only statutory embodiments to one of ordinary skill in the art absent an explicit and deliberate limiting definition or clear differentiation between storage media and transitory media in the disclosure. As such, the claim(s) is/are drawn to a form of energy. Energy is not one of the four categories of invention and therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are not statutory. Energy is not a series of steps or acts and thus is not a process. Energy is not a physical article or object and as such is not a machine or manufacture. Energy is not a combination of substances and therefore not a composition of matter.
The Examiner suggests amending the claim(s) to read as a "non-transitory computer readable storage medium".
Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are directed towards the statutory category of a machine. Claims 11-13 and 15-19 are directed towards the statutory category of a method. Claim 20 is directed towards the statutory category of an article of manufacture.
With regard to claim 1:
Step 2A Prong 1: This claim is direct to a judicial exception.
infer a second component that is affected by the leak (mental process - a person can manually look at the leak and determine that a second component maybe affected)
generate an alert message indicating the first and second components that are affected by the leak (mental process - a person can manually generate an alert message)
calculate a statistical histogram for a plurality of the leakage events (mathematical concept – using mathematical formulas and/or calculations)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
a systems manager stored in at least one memory and executed by at least one processor (adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) – generic computer component)
obtain location information for each of a plurality of components of a computing cluster (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g) – data gathering)
when the systems manager receives leakage information associated with a leak in the liquid cooling system (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g) – data gathering)
store a record associated with each leakage event that occurs (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g) – data gathering)
display the statistical histogram (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g) – data presentation)
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
a systems manager stored in at least one memory and executed by at least one processor (adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) – generic computer component)
obtain location information for each of a plurality of components of a computing cluster (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that merely "storing and retrieving information in memory" and/or "receiving or transmitting data over a network" are well-understood, routine, conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer)
when the systems manager receives leakage information associated with a leak in the liquid cooling system (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that merely "storing and retrieving information in memory" and/or "receiving or transmitting data over a network" are well-understood, routine, conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer)
store a record associated with each leakage event that occurs (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that merely "storing and retrieving information in memory" and/or "receiving or transmitting data over a network" are well-understood, routine, conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer)
display the statistical histogram (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that merely "storing and retrieving information in memory" and/or "receiving or transmitting data over a network" are well-understood, routine, conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the presenting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer)
Claims 2, 3, and 5-10, the claims merely elaborate on what data is collected, how the determination is made, what generic computer component is utilized, or where the results are applied; thus, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 11-13 and 15-20 recite elements having the same scope as those pertaining to claims 1-3 and 5-10; therefore, claims 15-20 are rejected along the same grounds as claims 1-3 and 5-10.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,197,190. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as demonstrated below.
Instant Application
Pat. No. 12,197,190
1. A liquid cooling leakage abatement system comprising:
a systems manager stored in at least one memory and executed by at least one processor to:
1. A liquid cooling leakage abatement system comprising:
a systems manager stored in at least one memory and executed by at least one processor to:
obtain location information for each of a plurality of components of a computing cluster,
obtain location information for each of a plurality of components of a computing cluster,
at least a portion of the components cooled by a liquid cooling system using a liquid coolant; and
at least a portion of the components cooled by a liquid cooling system using a liquid coolant; and
when the systems manager receives leakage information associated with a leak in the liquid cooling system that is used to cool a first component:
when the systems manager receives leakage information associated with a leak in the liquid cooling system that is used to cool a first component:
infer a second component that is affected by the leak;
infer, using the obtained location information, a second component that is affected by the leak
by determining that the second component is located within a specified distance from the first component; to determine the specified distance: obtain flowrate information associated with a flowrate of the leak; and using the obtained flowrate, estimate a propagation rate at which the liquid coolant contacts one or more other of the components, the propagation rate comprising the specified distance over an ongoing duration of the leak; and
generate an alert message indicating the first and second components that are affected by the leak;
generate an alert message indicating the first and second components that are affected by the leak.
store a record associated with each leakage event that occurs to the computer cluster over time, the leak comprising one of the leakage events;
6. … store a record associated with each leakage event that occurs to the computing cluster over time, the leak comprising one of the leakage events;
calculate a statistical histogram for a plurality of the leakage events; and display the statistical histogram for view by a user.
6. … calculate a statistical histogram for a plurality of the leakage events; and display the statistical histogram for view by a user.
2
2
3
1
4
1
5
3
6
3
7
4
8
5
9
7
10
8
Claims 11-20 recite elements having the same scope as those pertaining to claim 1-9. Therefore, claims 11-20 are rejected on the same ground of nonstatutory double patenting as claims 1-9.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10-13, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chainer et al. [U.S. Pub. 2016/0270259] in view of Gao [U.S. Pub. 2022/0390195] further in view of Estrada [US Pub. 2018/0039533].
With regard to claim 1, Chainer teaches a liquid cooling leakage abatement system ("An apparatus for minimizing the volume of coolant leaked [abstract]") comprising:
a systems manager stored in at least one memory and executed by at least one processor to ("The computer program product may include a computer readable storage medium (or media) having computer readable program instructions thereon for causing a processor to carry out aspects of the present invention [par. 0055]"):
obtain location information for each of a plurality of components of a computing cluster ("a notification is immediately sent to the head node as well as to the facility controller identifying the location and specifications of the affected or possibly-affected equipment [par. 0050]"), at least a portion of the components cooled by a liquid cooling system using a liquid coolant ("liquid cooled electronic equipment [par. 0027]"); and
when the systems manager receives leakage information associated with a leak in the liquid cooling system that is used to cool a first component ("identifying a location of the coolant leak in the closed liquid cooling loop of an affected server in the server rack [par. 0043]" and "a notification is immediately sent to the head node as well as to the facility controller identifying the location and specifications of the affected or possibly-affected equipment [par. 0050]"):
generate an alert message indicating the first ("a notification is immediately sent to the head node as well as to the facility controller identifying the location and specifications of the affected or possibly-affected equipment [par. 0050]");
.
Although Chainer teaches identifying affected or possible-affected equipment, Chainer does not explicitly teach to infer a second component that is affected by the leak.
Gao teaches to infer a second component that is affected by a leak ("One or more leak detection sensors (241 and 242) can be arranged upon each of the plurality of sections and each of corresponding IT equipment, to detect whether any leak is present in any of the plurality of sections or any of the corresponding IT equipment. For example, one or more leak sensors 241 can be arranged strategically on, near, or below any or each of IT equipment A-E to determine whether any of IT equipment A-E have a fluid leak [par. 0023]" and "The IT equipment can be stacked one above the other as shown in the figure, in individual shelves in the IT rack 200. Thus, a leak from IT equipment A-E or section 202 of the manifold can travel down to IT equipment F-J and cause damage [par. 0025]" and "If the controller closes valve 232, however, then the controller can power down IT equipment A-E and IT equipment F-J [par. 0029]").
In light of Gao's teachings, it can be seen that a leak at an upper level can potentially travel down to components at a lower level. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified Chainer's teachings to include Gao's teachings of inferring that a second component is affect by a leak, such as a leak at an upper level, for the benefit preemptively powering down lower level equipment to prevent damage.
The combination does not explicitly teach to store a record associated with each leakage event that occurs to the computer cluster over time, the leak comprising one of the leakage events;
calculate a statistical histogram for a plurality of the leakage events; and
display the statistical histogram for view by a user.
In the same field of endeavor (identifying and analyzing issues within a system), Estrada teaches to store a record associated with each event that occurs over time, the event comprising one of the events ("a problem management record (PMR) describing the service event is logged in a repository [par. 0075]" and "the line graph 600 includes an X-axis 602 indicating time and a Y-axis 604 indicating a number of events [par. 0082]" and "the number of events illustrated by the Y-axis 604 may include a number of service events for a single device (e.g., a single customer storage system, etc.) or a plurality of devices (e.g., a plurality of linked customer storage systems, etc.)[par. 0083]");
calculate a statistical histogram for a plurality of the events ("where data associated with the service event is pulled from the repository and is placed into a graphing tool that produces a graph of all specific component failures [par. 0076]" and ); and
display the statistical histogram for view by a user ("a graph may be displayed using a graphical user interface (GUI) [par. 0070]").
Estrada further teaches, "issues may be anticipated and resolved on single or multiple systems via an advanced trending analysis, and may be shown utilizing a line graph 600 that may resemble an EKG for one or more users to review [par. 0086]."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have improved Chainer's method of detecting leaks, with Estrada's teachings of using a graph to perform trend analysis to anticipate and/or resolve issues, since the analysis would be applied in the same way in Chainer's method as it is in Estrada's method and would predictably allow Chainer's method to record and analyze leak events for the benefit of potentially anticipating and/or resolving leak issues.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have substituted a histogram for the graph as taught by Estrada, since both graphing techniques are know equivalents for presenting various data and the combination would have predictably allowed the combination of Chainer, Gao, and Estrada to present leak events in a desired format.
With regard to claim 2, the combination above teaches the liquid cooling leakage abatement system of claim 1. Gao in the combination further teaches wherein the systems manager is further executed to infer that the second component is affected by the leak by determining that the second component is located below the first component, the first and second components configured in the same computing rack ("The IT equipment can be stacked one above the other as shown in the figure, in individual shelves in the IT rack 200. Thus, a leak from IT equipment A-E or section 202 of the manifold can travel down to IT equipment F-J and cause damage [par. 0025]" and "If the controller closes valve 232, however, then the controller can power down IT equipment A-E and IT equipment F-J [par. 0029]" and [fig. 2]).
With regard to claim 3, the combination above teaches the liquid cooling leakage abatement system of claim 1. Gao in the combination further teaches wherein the systems manager is further executed to infer that the second component is affected by the leak by determining that the second component is located within a specified distance from the first component ("The IT equipment can be stacked one above the other as shown in the figure, in individual shelves in the IT rack 200. Thus, a leak from IT equipment A-E or section 202 of the manifold can travel down to IT equipment F-J and cause damage [par. 0025]" and "The controller can manage shut-down of each of the IT equipment when a valve that is upstream of the IT equipment is closed … If the controller closes valve 232, however, then the controller can power down IT equipment A-E and IT equipment F-J [par. 0029]" and [fig. 2]).
With regard to claim 7, the combination above teaches the liquid cooling leakage abatement system of claim 1. Chainer in the combination further teaches wherein the systems manager is further executed to communicate with the liquid cooling system to shut off a flow of the liquid to the computer cluster ("the power to the corresponding pump and the power to the affected IT equipment are then turned off at block 812 [par. 0050]").
With regard to claim 8, the combination above teaches the liquid cooling leakage abatement system of claim 1. Chainer in the combination further teaches wherein the systems manager is further executed to, prior to shutting off the flow of liquid, communicating with the first component to migrate one or more workloads supported by the first component to another one or more of the components ("workload from the affected server is reallocated to an unaffected server in the server rack [par. 0046]." Chainer further teaches, "In some alternative implementations, the functions noted in the block may occur out of the order noted in the figures. For example, two blocks shown in succession may, in fact, be executed substantially concurrently, or the blocks may sometimes be executed in the reverse order, depending upon the functionality involved [par. 0062]." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have reversed the order of shutting off the flow of liquid and migrating the workload, because in having so would simply be a change in sequence and would have yielded the predictable result of still allowing the workload to be migrated while stopping the flow of liquid).
With regard to claim 10, the combination above teaches the liquid cooling leakage abatement system of claim 1. Chainer in the combination further teaches wherein each of the components comprises at least one of
a computing blade, a computing server [fig. 1: Server (104)], a power distribution unit (PDU), an input/output (I/O) device, a networking device, and a storage unit.
Note: claims is presented in the alternative.
With regard to claims 11-13, 17, and 18, the combination above teaches claims 1-3, 7, and 8. Claims 11-13, 17, and 18 recite limitations having the same scope as those pertaining to claim 1-3, 7, and 8, respectively; therefore, claims 11-13, 17, and 18 are rejected along the same grounds as claims 1-3, 7, and 8.
With regard to claim 20, the combination above teaches claim 1. Claim 20 recites limitations having the same scope as those pertaining to claim 1; therefore, claim 20 is rejected along the same grounds as claim 1.
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chainer in view of Gao in view of Estrada further in view of Quist et al. [U.S. Pub. 2015/0066396] ("Quist").
With regard to claim 5, the combination of Chainer, Gao, and Estrada teaches the liquid cooling leakage abatement system of claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the systems manager is further executed to display a map of the computing cluster, and display an overlay of an estimated propagation rate of the liquid coolant over the map.
In an analogous art (monitoring flow rates), Quist teaches wherein a systems manager is further executed to display a map of a system of conduits ("FIG. 8 is a simplified map of a system of conduits [par. 0052]"), and display an overlay of an estimated propagation rate of a liquid over the map ("Flow-rate and/or flow-depth information might be obtained by specifying a respective flow-depth sensor via a user interface. As illustrated in FIG. 8, for example, mouse pointer 826 might be used to select flow-depth sensor 816. In response to selection of the flow-depth sensor, the flow-estimation processor may present a graph of estimated flow rates and flow-rate measurements [par. 0053]").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have included Quist's teachings of displaying an overlay of an estimated propagation rate of liquid over a map, with the teachings of Chainer, Gao, and Quist, for the benefit of allowing a user to quickly and conveniently see flow rates within the computing cluster.
With regard to claim 6, the combination above teaches the liquid cooling leakage abatement system of claim 5. Quist in the combination further teaches wherein the map comprises at least one of a rack view or a cluster-wide view ("FIG. 8 is a simplified map of a system of conduits, in accordance with exemplary embodiments. As shown, system 800 includes conduit sections 802, 804, 806, 808, 810, and 812, some of which are branches of other conduit sections [par. 0052];" similar to what was presented in claim 5 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified the teachings of Chainer, Gao, and Quiest, to include a map comprising a conduit system wide view as taught by Quist, yielding a map comprising a cluster-wide view, for the benefit of allowing a user to quickly and conveniently see flow rates within the computing cluster).
With regard to claims 15 and 16, the combination above teaches claims 5 and 6. Claims 15 and 16 recite limitations having the same scope as those pertaining to claim 5 and 6, respectively; therefore, claims 15 and 16 are rejected along the same grounds as claims 5 and 6.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chainer in view of Gao in view of Estrada further in view of Bayley et al. [US Pub. 2015/0149218] ("Bayley").
With regard to claim 9, the combination of Chainer, Gao, and Estrada teaches the liquid cooling leakage abatement system of claim 8. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the systems manager is further executed to: obtain cost information associated with a cost of each of the components; determine an overall cost due to the leakage events over time; and display the overall cost for view by the user.
In the same field of endeavor (determining damage costs), Bayley teaches wherein a systems manager is further executed to:
obtain cost information associated with a cost of each of the components ("damage cost module 146 may provide individual, estimated cost for repairing and/or replacing each damaged part of vehicle 102 involved in the crash event using predetermined monetary values for each part [par. 0065]");
determine an overall cost due to damage over time ("damage cost module 146 may also generate a bill of materials (BOM) based on the estimated and/or detected damage … total costs for replacing, repairing [par. 0066]"); and
display the overall cost for view by the user ("notification 500 may also include a bill of materials (BOM) 510 [par. 0089]").
Bayley further teaches, "to instantaneously provide an estimated damage cost to the vehicle involved in the crash event [par. 0008]."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have included Bayley's teachings of instantaneously estimating damage costs, with the teachings of Chainer, Gao, and Estrada, for the benefit of quickly determining the cost to replace components affected by the leak.
With regard to claim 19, the combination above teaches claim 9. Claim 19 recites limitations having the same scope as those pertaining to claim 9; therefore, claim 19 is rejected along the same grounds as claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, as well as overcoming any rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and any double patenting rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Chainer et al. teaches an apparatus for minimizing the volume of coolant leaked in liquid cooled electronic equipment, the apparatus including a server rack, a plurality of closed liquid cooling loops, a plurality of liquid to liquid heat exchangers, and a plurality of pumps. The closed liquid cooling loops are coupled to at least one of the servers in the server rack. Each of the closed liquid cooling loops restricts coolant flow entirely within the server rack. The closed liquid cooling loops may provide the entire volume of coolant provided to each server in the server rack.
Shelnutt et al. teaches where a Rack Information Handling System (RIHS) has a liquid cooling subsystem that provides cooling liquid to liquid cooled (LC) nodes received in chassis-receiving bays of a rack. Leak collection structures are positioned to receive cooling liquid that leaks from the liquid cooling subsystem. Liquid sensors detect a presence of leaked cooling liquid in the leak collection structures. A leak detection subsystem responds to a detected presence of liquid by providing a leak indication.
Gao teaches A liquid manifold can be assembled to an information technology (IT) rack to deliver and distribute fluid to IT equipment. The manifold can include a plurality of sections, each of the plurality of sections having one or more shut-off valves. One or more leak detection sensors can be arranged to detect leaks in any of the sections and in any of the IT equipment. A controller can control a shut-off valve to a closed position based on a detected leak.
Heydari et al. teaches a remediation system for threshold leaks in a datacenter liquid cooling system. The system includes a fluid controller and a power controller that are adapted to receive input from a learning subsystem that can determine that a threshold leak has occurred even though a computing component is functioning normally, so that a change in power state to reduce reliance on the coolant and so that a change of flow of the coolant may be affected.
Gregory et al. teaches where a leak sensor may detect a coolant leak at or near an appliance that is slidable between a seated position and an ejected position relative to a rack. In the seated position, a coolant supply line may be coupled with a conduit of the appliance to convey coolant past the appliance. A biaser can bias the appliance toward the ejected position, and a latch may secure the appliance in a seated position against the biaser. A releaser can release the latch in response to coolant leak detection by the sensor and permit the biaser to move the appliance toward the ejected position.
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest, individually or in combination,
wherein the systems manager is further executed to determine the specified distance by:
obtaining flowrate information associated with a flowrate of the leak;
using the obtained flowrate, estimating a propagation rate at which the liquid coolant contacts one or more other of the components, the propagation rate comprising the specified distance over an ongoing duration of the leak, as recited in claims 4 and 14 in combination with the remaining limitations as set forth in each respective independent claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT W CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1214. The examiner can normally be reached (M-F) 10:00 am - 6:00 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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/VINCENT WEN-LIANG CHANG/
Examiner
Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights