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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2023/0059922 – herein after Lin; cited by applicant on IDS dated 03/27/2025) in view of Hansen et al. (US 2009/0093909 – herein after Hansen).
In reference to claim 1, Lin teaches a pump system (1, see fig. 1) comprising:
a housing (seen in fig. 1) including an opening (seen in fig. 2; this is the opening into which pump unit(s) 2 are inserted into and removed from) and a flow path for fluid (flow path in coolant loop 10, see fig. 1);
a plurality of pumps (2) that are insertable into and removable from the housing via the opening and are connected to the flow path by being attached to the housing (as evident from figs. 1-4); and
a controller (inherent feature; the pump system, which is used to cool servers of a datacenter (see ¶2), inherently has a central management system or a local control board within the CDU to turn on and off the pumps).
Lin does not teach the pump system, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to: stop operation of a first pump of the plurality of pumps only for a specific time when the controller recognizes that a second pump, other than the first pump among the plurality of pumps, is connected to the flow path while the first pump is in operation; and control power supply to the second pump during the specific time.
However, Hansen teaches (see ¶14-¶16) a functional necessity of stopping one compressor unit (note: “compressor” is a type of fluid pump) in a multi-compressor system where the other is in a “stopped” state or “starting” state for pressure equalization and electrical stabilization.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pump system of Lin wherein the controller is configured or programmed to stop operation of a first pump of the plurality of pumps only for a specific time when the controller recognizes that a second pump, other than the first pump among the plurality of pumps, is connected to the flow path while the first pump is in operation and control power supply to the second pump during the specific time using the teaching of Hansen to allow for pressure equalization and electrical stabilization, as recognized by Hansen (see ¶14-¶16).
In reference to claim 2, Lin, as modified, teaches the pump system, wherein when the controller recognizes that the second pump is connected to the flow path, the controller is configured or programmed to stop the operation of the first pump only for the specific time.
Lin, as modified, remains silent on the controller is configured or programmed to stop the operation of the first pump only for the specific time after a waiting time that is a predetermined time has elapsed.
Lin teaches (see ¶34) a hot-swappable pump connection utilizing a manual labor-saving bolt (241), an operation which inherently creates a non-zero-time interval between initial electrical contact and final mechanical seating. Hansen teaches that (see ¶27) multi-unit control systems should utilize a “predetermined time interval” to allow for system stabilization, such as pressure equalization, before executing subsequent control commands. Additionally, Hansen teaches that (see ¶28) sequential operations with specific time intervals are necessary to avoid overloading the power supply.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a predetermined waiting time in the modified pump system of Lin to ensure the newly connected pump is electrically stable and properly seated before stopping the active pump, thereby preventing the 0controller from responding to transient electrical “chatter” or unstable contact inherent in Lin’s manual assembly process (see ¶81 in Lin).
In reference to claim 3, Lin, as modified, teaches the pump system, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to restart the first pump being stopped when power supplied to the second pump is stabilized (see ¶16 of Hansen: for instance, in the modified pump system, the asserted first pump in stopped state is restarted after the asserted second pump “has started properly”; Hansen’s use of a predetermined time interval to allow a unit to start properly provides the functional equivalent of the claimed stabilization trigger).
In reference to claim 9, Lin, as modified, remains silent on a refrigerant circulation device comprising the pump system according to claim 1, wherein the fluid is a refrigerant.
Lin teaches a coolant distribution unit (CDU) configured to circulate a “coolant” through a loop to cool heat-generating devices. While Lin uses the term “coolant,” Hansen teaches a refrigeration system (a refrigerant circulation device) where the circulating fluid is a “refrigerant”.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to characterize Lin’s CDU as a “refrigerant circulation device” or to utilize a “refrigerant” as the circulating fluid, as both refrigerant systems and CDUs are standard thermal management systems that circulate fluids to transfer thermal energy. Substituting Lin’s coolant with a refrigerant as taught by Hansen represents a simple substitution of one known heat-transfer fluid for another to achieve the same cooling result. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
In reference to claim 10, Lin teaches a control device (inherent feature; the pump system, which is used to cool servers of a datacenter (see ¶2), inherently has a central management system or a local control board within the CDU to turn on and off the pumps) capable of controlling a plurality of pumps (2) that are insertable into and removable from (as evident from figs. 1-4) a housing (seen in fig. 1) via an opening (seen in fig. 2; this is the opening into which pump unit(s) 2 are inserted into and removed from) and are connected to a flow path (flow path in coolant loop 10, see fig. 1) for fluid provided to the housing by being attached to the housing.
Lin does not teach the control device comprising: a stop controller configured or programmed to stop operation of a first pump of the plurality of pumps only for a specific time when the stop controller recognizes that a second pump, other than the first pump among the plurality of pumps, is connected to the flow path while the first pump is in operation; and a power supply controller configured or programmed to control power supply to the second pump during the specific time.
However, Hansen teaches (see ¶14-¶16) a functional necessity of stopping one compressor unit (note: “compressor” is a type of fluid pump) in a multi-compressor system where the other is in a “stopped” state or “starting” state for pressure equalization and electrical stabilization. Thus, Hansen teaches a control device for systems with multiple fluid-moving units (such as compressors) that operates in a “mutually dependent manner”. Hansen’s control device includes logic to “stop operation” of a first unit upon recognizing the start of a second unit to avoid pressure differences. Furthermore, Hansen teaches a power supply controller function that manages the power to the units sequentially or with specific timing to avoid “overload” of the power source during these transitions.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pump system of Lin wherein the control device comprises a stop controller configured or programmed to stop operation of a first pump of the plurality of pumps only for a specific time when the stop controller recognizes that a second pump, other than the first pump among the plurality of pumps, is connected to the flow path while the first pump is in operation; and a power supply controller configured or programmed to control power supply to the second pump during the specific time using the teaching of Hansen to allow for pressure equalization and electrical stabilization, as recognized by Hansen (see ¶14-¶16).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Hansen and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2007/0131805 – herein after Yamaguchi).
Lin, as modified, teaches the pump system, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to operate the second pump.
Lin, as modified, remains silent on the pump system, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to operate the second pump after power supplied to the second pump is stabilized.
However, Yamaguchi teaches a controller (motor controller 82) featuring a delay unit (182) configured to activate the pump only after a specific delay from the time the power source is energized. This delay is implemented to ensure that the pump is actuated only after the emitter electrode sees a “stabilized” power output, thereby ensuring optimum performance and avoiding the delivery of fluid before the system is electrically ready (see ¶10, ¶65-¶66).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that newly connected electronic components, such as pumps in the modified pump system of Lin, may experience transient electrical states when first receiving power. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the stabilization logic taught by Yamaguchi into the modified pump system of Lin to ensure that the second pump in Lin’s modified pump system does not attempt to move fluid until its internal motor drivers and control electronics are in a steady, reliable state. This integration predictably improves system reliability by preventing pump operation under potentially unstable electrical conditions that could lead to motor stalls or erratic flow during the ”hot-swap” process.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Hansen and further in view of Yamaguchi and Gupta et al. (US 2026/0089884 – herein after Gupta).
Lin, as modified, teaches the pump system, further comprising an operation display configured to display a screen for allowing a user operation to designate whether or not the operation of the second pump is allowed to start after the power supplied to the second pump is stabilized; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to operate the second pump when the user operation designates that the operation of the second pump is allowed to start.
However, Gupta teaches a replaceable pump unit for data centers that includes a control system with various user interfaces, such as “web interface” or a “visual user interface”. These interfaces allow a human operator to “interact with other electrical components”, “read operating parameters” and “set values” including the direct manual control of pump speeds (see ¶75, ¶92).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in mission-critical environments like data center cooling, automated transitions should be supplemented with human oversight for safety. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate visual interface capabilities as taught by Gupta in the modified pump system of Lin to provide an operation display screen for allowing a user to designate whether the second pump is allowed to start after the power has stabilized, thereby ensuring that a human operator can verify the physical integrity and status of the newly swapped pump before authorizing full system integration to reduce the risk of equipment damage or cooling interruptions.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Hansen and further in view of Donahue, IV William F. (US 6,937,461 – herein after Donahue).
Lin, as modified, does not teach the pump system, further comprising: a common board on which a first wiring for power transmission is provided; a plurality of individual boards electrically connected to the first wiring and on each of which a second wiring for power transmission is provided; a plurality of first electric wires for power transmission electrically connected to a plurality of the second wirings; and a plurality of components connected to the plurality of first electric wires.
However, Donahue teaches a modular power distribution system designed for varying power requirements and scalability. Thus, Donahue teaches a common board (connector panel 34; see fig. 7) on which a first wiring (see fig. A below) for power transmission is provided; a plurality of individual boards (64 within each of the modules 26, 28, 30, 32) electrically connected to the first wiring (via corresponding connectors; for instance, connectors 40 and 66 for module 26 in view of figs. 3 and 7) and on each of which a second wiring (see fig. A below; second wiring corresponding to module 26 is shown) for power transmission is provided; a plurality of first electric wires (each first electric wire corresponding to equipment needing power; wherein the equipment is coupled to receptacle 70, 72; see col. 6, lines 31-34) for power transmission electrically connected to a plurality of the second wirings (see fig. A below); and a plurality of components (equipment needing power) connected to the plurality of first electric wires.
PNG
media_image1.png
932
1126
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
874
2254
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. A: Edited figs. 3, 6 and 7 of Donahue to show claim interpretation.
Lin teaches a coolant distribution unit (CDU) with a pump system. The coolant distribution unit(s) conventionally integrate electronic components such as pumps and sensors to manage fluid flow. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in mission-critical environments like data center cooling, modularity is essential for maintenance and scalability. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the modular board-to-wire architecture as taught by Donahue in the modified pump system of Lin to enhance system serviceability and allow for the easy replacement of individual internal components (like sensors or valves) by utilizing standardized individual boards and wire harnesses, rather than hard-wiring the entire system to a single point of failure.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Hansen and further in view of Donahue and Schaap et al. (US 2024/0164057 – herein after Schaap).
Lin, as modified, teaches the pump system, further comprising: a second electric wire for power transmission (power supply source is inherently present in Lin that provides power to the pump units; “second electric wire” is a wire between the power supply source and connection socket 14; see Lin’s ¶40 and fig. 14); and a first connector (14) electrically connected to the second electric wire; wherein the pump (2b; in fig. 14) includes: a second connector (29) electrically connected to the first connector when the pump is mounted on the housing; a pump electric wire (wire that connects component 29 to a drive source such as motor of the pump) that is an electric wire for power transmission and is electrically connected to the second connector (29).
Lin, as modified, remains silent on the pump system, comprising a pump board that is a board electrically connected to the pump electric wire.
However, Schaap teaches a similar pump system (see fig. 6 and ¶25, ¶53, ¶54, ¶56), comprising hot-swappable pump cassettes (604a, 604b). Each pump cassette includes a local controller (606a, 606b), which is a board-level component (such as a PLC) that manages the operation of the internal motor and other peripheral electronic devices. This local controller board is electrically connected to the internal power lines of the cassette (pump electric wire) to receive power and control signals, enabling the cassette to implement localized control loops and diagnostic monitoring.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a pump board as taught by Schaap in the modified pump system of Lin to provide localized processing and control capabilities within the pump unit, which allows the pump unit to manage its own internal components (such as motor driver or motor), thereby reducing the processing load on the main controller.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Hansen and further in view of Donahue and Thibaut et al. (US 2022/0248555 – herein after Thibaut).
Lin, as modified, teaches the pump system, further comprising: a power supply (see col. 4, lines 3-5 of Donahue) that supplies power to the first wiring (see fig. A above).
Lin, as modified, remains silent on the pump system, wherein the power supply includes a casing; and wherein the common board is located along a surface of the casing.
However, Thibaut teaches a power supply enclosed in a casing (60, see ¶74 and figs. 4-5) and a board (38) is located (on backplane 12) along a surface (bottom surface) of the casing.
Since applicant has not disclosed any criticality with respect to having the board enclosed in a casing and the common board along a surface of the casing, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a casing for the power supply and locate the common board along a surface of the casing as taught by Thibaut in the modified pump system of Lin in order to shorten the length of the electrical connections between the power source and the common board, which predictably reduces electrical impedance and electromagnetic interference while allowing the entire power distribution assembly to fit within a compact rack-unit footprint.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 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, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/CHIRAG JARIWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights