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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chainer et al. (U.S. PGPub 2012/0279047) in view of Campbell et al. (U.S. PGPub 2014/0123493; here after referred to as Campbell ‘493) and Campbell et al. (U.S. PGPub 2014/0124164; here after referred to as Campbell ‘164).
Regarding claim 1, Chainer teaches a cooling system (fig. 4), comprising a cooling source (element 440) configured to provide a cooling liquid (“coolant” from element 440 para. 0056-57); an air cooling portion ( element 410) configured to cool an electronic device (“electronic system” of element 400) with a gas (“air”), wherein the air cooling portion comprises a first liquid inlet (from 440 at 455) and a first liquid outlet (element 450 to 430), and the first liquid inlet is connected to the cooling source via a first pipeline (pipe from 440 to 410) to receive the cooling liquid from the cooling source (per fig. 4); a liquid cooling portion (element 400) configured to cool the electronic device with a liquid (“coolant” to element 435), wherein the liquid cooling portion comprises a second liquid inlet (at element 450 of element 430) and a second liquid outlet (at element 450 of element 431), the second liquid inlet being connected to the first liquid outlet via a second pipeline (element 420 between 410 and 400) to receive the cooling liquid from the air cooling portion, and the second liquid outlet being connected to the cooling source via a third pipeline (element 420 from 400 to 440) to return the cooling liquid to the cooling source for cooling (per fig. 4).
Campbell ‘493 teaches the application of cooling distribution units (Fig. 3 & 6A) comprising a first cooling liquid circulation path and a second cooling liquid circulation path which exchange heat with each other (fig. 3 & 6A). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Chainer such that a cooling distribution unit is applied such that the first cooling liquid circulation path is connected to the second liquid inlet and the second liquid outlet (as shown in fig 3 & 6A) to enable the cooling liquid to flow in the first cooling liquid circulation path (line between such), and the second cooling liquid circulation path is connected to the electronic device via a circulation pipeline to provide another cooling liquid in the second cooling liquid circulation path to the electronic device (second fluid path shown in fig. 3 & 6A) . The motivation to do so would be to simplify the main coolant loop and make the server maintenance and connection easier.
Chainer does not teach a first bypass branch connected between the second pipeline and the third pipeline and configured to guide a portion of the cooling liquid in the second pipeline directly into the third pipeline, wherein the first bypass branch comprises at least one first valve switchable between an open state and a closed state.
Campbell ‘164 teaches a bypass (element 734/736) between pipelines (per fig. 7), and teaches the bypass comprises at least one first valve switchable (element 734/736) between an open state and a closed state (per para. 0050). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Chainer to use a bypass similar to that taught as claimed, the motivation would be to allow coolant to partially or fully bypass the heat exchanger to match or meet temperature requirements (para. 0050),
Regarding claim 9, Chainer’047 does not teach the air cooling portion comprises: a first air cooling portion configured to cool a first portion of the electronic device, wherein the first air cooling portion is provided with the first liquid inlet and the first liquid outlet; and
a second air cooling portion configured to cool a second portion of the electronic device, wherein the second air cooling portion is provided with the first liquid inlet and the first liquid outlet, and the second portion of the electronic device is further cooled by the liquid cooling portion. (Note that Chainer does teach a first air cooling portion as claimed, but not the combination with the second).
Campbell ‘493 teaches a first air cooling portion (element 730) configured to cool a first portion of the electronic device, wherein the first air cooling portion is provided with the first liquid inlet and the first liquid outlet (per fig. 7a); and
a second air cooling portion (element 720) configured to cool a second portion of the electronic device, wherein the second air cooling portion is provided with the first liquid inlet and the first liquid outlet (per fig. 7a), and the second portion of the electronic device is further cooled by the liquid cooling portion (per fig. 7a). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Chainer to use an air cooling portion similar to Campbell ‘493, the motivation would be to improve heat transfer in the electronic system.
Regarding claim 10, Campbell ‘493 further teaches the first air cooling portion comprises a first air wall (fig. 7c) configured to draw gas from the first portion of the electronic device (per fig. 7c), and the second air cooling portion comprises a second air wall (fig. 7b) configured to draw gas from the second portion of the electronic device (fig. 7b). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Chainer to use an air cooling portion similar to Campbell ‘493, the motivation would be to improve heat transfer in the electronic system.
Regarding claim 11, Campbell ‘493 teaches the application of cooling distribution units (Fig. 3 & 6A) comprising a first cooling liquid circulation path and a second cooling liquid circulation path which exchange heat with each other (fig. 3 & 6A). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Chainer such that a cooling distribution unit is applied such that the first cooling liquid circulation path is connected to the second liquid inlet and the second liquid outlet to enable the cooling liquid to flow in the first cooling liquid circulation path, and the second cooling liquid circulation path is connected to the electronic device via a circulation pipeline to provide another cooling liquid in the second cooling liquid circulation path to the electronic device. The motivoant to do so would be to simplify the main coolant loop and make the server maintenance and connection easier.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chainer et al. (U.S. PGPub 2012/0279047) in view of Campbell et al. (U.S. PGPub 2014/0123493; here after referred to as Campbell ‘493) and Campbell et al. (U.S. PGPub 2014/0124164; here after referred to as Campbell ‘164), and in further view of Keisling et al. (U.S. PGPub 2012/0318492).
Regarding claim 4, Chainer teaches the cooling source comprises a dry cooler (element 442 – “air-to-liquid heat exchanger”) comprising a dry cooler liquid outlet and a dry cooler liquid return port (per fig. 4).
Chainer does not teach the cooling source comprises: a cooling tower comprising a cooling tower liquid outlet and a cooling tower liquid return port, wherein the cooling tower liquid outlet is connected to the first liquid inlet via the first pipeline; and wherein the dry cooler liquid return port is connected to the second liquid outlet via the third pipeline, and the dry cooler liquid outlet is connected to the cooling tower liquid return port via a fourth pipeline. Keisling teaches a cooling source includes cooling tower and dry cooler (para. 0131 – 0132, and 0136) with bypasses around the individual ones (para. 0239). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Chainer to use a cooling source similar to Keisling in the form claimed, the motivation would be to enable close system pressure and flow tolerances (para. 0172).
Regarding claim 5, Keisling teaches bypass branching (para. 0239 & 0172) using piping and valves such that the modification as done in claim 4 to further include the piping/valving of claims 5 would have been obvious for the same reasoning and motivation.
Regarding claim 6, Keisling teaches bypass branching (para. 0239 & 0172) using piping and valves such that the modification as done in claim 4 to further include the piping/valving of claims 5 would have been obvious for the same reasoning and motivation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specific arguments are responded to below.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the first bypass branch 4 is in parallel with the first cooling liquid circulation path of the cooling distribution unit 33the parallel relationship of the branches or the” as no parallel relationship is claimed or required; ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicants’ arguments of “However, regardless of whether bypass valves 736 and 734 are opened or closed, they do not affect the amount of the secondary coolant entering the liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger 720” ignores the combined teaching of the prior art and the application of the bypass to the system of combined teachings of Chainer, Campbell ‘493, and Campbell ‘164) and instead appears to require the teaching to be fully in a single piece of art instead of the rejection of obviousness made in combination.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson be reached on (571) 270-7740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights