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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation of “a first threshold temperature”, wherein it is unclear what “a first threshold temperature” is referring to since the exact term “a first threshold temperature” has already been recited in the claim. Is the term “a first threshold temperature” requiring that there are multiple “a first threshold temperature” or is the term referring back to the previously recited term? Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite and determined to be an antecedent basis issue. For examination purposes, the phrase has been interpreted as -- the first threshold temperature -- for clarity.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " the feed segment of the inner conduit loop " . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " the second valve" in lines 2 and 5 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The phrase has been examined as -- the first valve --.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from a claim that has been rejected.
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)(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.
(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) 1-2, 7-8, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PAN et al. US 2018/0042140 Al.
Re claim 1, PAN et al. teach a method of controlling a hybrid adiabatic cooling system to cool an interior of a data center, comprising: cooling, by a hybrid adiabatic cooler (18, 19, 20), a first cooling liquid (para 146) circulating from a return segment of an outer conduit loop (27, 28 external loop, fig 2) to a feed segment of the outer conduit loop (noting arrows fig 7 going outside of data center are a return segment and inlet arrows are feed segment); exchanging, by a direct liquid cooling unit , heat between a second cooling liquid and the first cooling liquid circulating from the feed segment of the outer conduit loop to the return segment of the outer conduit loop (paras 143-145)
diverting a portion of the first cooling liquid circulating in the feed segment of the outer conduit loop to a first segment of an inner conduit loop (para 194); determining, by a controller, whether to operate the hybrid adiabatic cooling system in a free cooling mode or a chiller mode based on a temperature of outdoor ambient air drawn through the hybrid adiabatic cooler to cool the first cooling liquid (para 23, 24, 36), exchanging, by a room air handling unit (9), heat between indoor ambient air and the diverted portion of the first cooling liquid circulating from the first segment of the inner conduit loop to a second segment of the inner conduit loop (first segment is portion exchanging heat and second segment is external to the heat exchangers) that is fluidly coupled to the return segment of the outer conduit loop (fig 2), wherein the diverted portion of the first cooling liquid in the first segment of the inner conduit loop bypasses a chiller (14, fig 2) when the controller operates the hybrid adiabatic cooling system in the free cooling mode, wherein the diverted portion of the first cooling liquid in the first segment of the inner conduit loop circulates through the chiller when the controller operates the hybrid adiabatic cooling system in the chiller mode (para 23, 24, 36, para 147-150, annotated fig).
PNG
media_image1.png
628
793
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
493
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, PAN et al. teach wherein the controller operates the hybrid adiabatic cooling system in the free cooling mode when the temperature of the outdoor ambient air is less than a first threshold temperature and in the chiller mode when the temperature of the outdoor ambient air is above a first threshold temperature (para 23, 24, 33-43, para 147-150).
Re claim 7, PAN et al. teach wherein the first segment of the inner conduit loop includes: a feed line fluidly coupled to the feed segment of the inner conduit loop (noting all segments are coupled to each other fig 2, and either inlet or outlet portion of inner segment can be considered feed line relative to what structure is directly being fed in series due to the limitation being broad);
a first chiller inlet line fluidly coupled to the feed line and a first inlet of the chiller; a chiller outlet line fluidly coupled to a first outlet of the chiller and the inlet of the air handling unit (annotated fig, noting all segments are coupled to each other fig 2 ); a bypass feed line fluidly coupled to the feed line and the chiller outlet line; and a first valve fluidly coupled to the feed line, the first chiller inlet line, and the bypass feed line of the first segment of the inner conduit loop (annotated fig, para 147-150).
PNG
media_image3.png
509
754
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claim 8, PAN et al. teach setting the first valve to a first position to direct the first cooling liquid from the feed line to the bypass feed line when the controller operates the hybrid adiabatic cooling system in the free cooling mode; and setting the first valve to a second position to direct the first cooling liquid from the feed line to the first chiller inlet line when the controller operates the hybrid adiabatic cooling system in the chiller mode (para 147-150).
Re claim 11, PAN et al. teach wherein the hybrid adiabatic cooler is disposed outside of the data center (fig 7 ).
Re claim 12 , PAN et al. teach wherein the direct liquid cooling unit and the room air handling unit are disposed inside of the data center (fig 7).
Re claim 13, PAN et al. teach wherein the feed segment of the outer conduit loop directs the first cooling liquid from outside of the data center to the interior of the data center, and the return segment of the outer conduit loop directs the first cooling liquid from the interior of the data center to the outside of the data center (fig 7).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CHOI US 20250098125 A1.
Re claim 1, CHOI teach a method of controlling a hybrid adiabatic cooling system to cool an interior of a data center, comprising: cooling, by a hybrid adiabatic cooler, a first cooling liquid circulating from a return segment of an outer conduit loop to a feed segment of the outer conduit loop; exchanging, by a direct liquid cooling unit, heat between a second cooling liquid and the first cooling liquid circulating from the feed segment of the outer conduit loop to the return segment of the outer conduit loop (para 42, fig 3);
diverting a portion of the first cooling liquid circulating in the feed segment of the outer conduit loop to a first segment of an inner conduit loop; determining, by a controller, whether to operate the hybrid adiabatic cooling system in a free cooling mode or a chiller mode based on a temperature of outdoor ambient air drawn through the hybrid adiabatic cooler to cool the first cooling liquid (para 1), exchanging, by a room air handling unit, heat between indoor ambient air and the diverted portion of the first cooling liquid circulating from the first segment of the inner conduit loop to a second segment of the inner conduit loop that is fluidly coupled to the return segment of the outer conduit loop, wherein the diverted portion of the first cooling liquid in the first segment of the inner conduit loop bypasses a chiller (100) when the controller operates the hybrid adiabatic cooling system in the free cooling mode, wherein the diverted portion of the first cooling liquid in the first segment of the inner conduit loop circulates through the chiller when the controller operates the hybrid adiabatic cooling system in the chiller mode.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PAN et al. in view of Grabon US 20240008225 A1 .
Re claim 9, PAN et al. teach wherein the second segment of the inner conduit loop includes: a discharge line (discharge line is part of first segment, noting claiming a “line” and “segment” in the claims; noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘segment’ is
one of the constituent parts into which a body, entity, or quantity is divided or marked off by or as if by natural boundaries ; therefore different lines are considered to be able to make up segments) fluidly coupled to the outlet of the air handling unit (fig 2).
PAN et al. fail to explicitly teach line details.
Grabon teach a second chiller inlet line (noting 34, 36 inlet and outlet modify the primary reference chiller inlet and outlet to add a plurality of chillers as taught by the secondary reference in the instant combination) fluidly coupled to the discharge line and a second inlet of the chiller; a second chiller outlet line fluidly coupled to a second outlet of the chiller and the return segment of the outer conduit loop; and a bypass outlet line (para 45) fluidly coupled to the discharge line and the return segment of the outer conduit loop (noting multiple branches between the two chiller systems that satisfy broad claim limitations “a second inlet of the chiller”, “a second chiller outlet line”) to add a plurality of chillers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include line details as taught by Grabon in the PAN et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for increased heat rejection capacity by series multiplication (para 45).
Re claim 10, PAN et al. teach comprising: setting the second valve to a first position to direct the first cooling liquid from the discharge line to the bypass outlet line when the controller operates the hybrid adiabatic cooling system in the free cooling mode; and setting the second valve to a second position to direct the first cooling liquid from the discharge line to the second chiller inlet line when the controller operates the hybrid adiabatic cooling system in the chiller mode (para 147-150).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PAN et al. in view of GAO US 20230301024 A1 .
Re claim 3,
PAN et al. fail to explicitly teach pump controls.
GAO teach further comprising: deactivating a pump fluidly coupled to the inner conduit loop when the controller operates the hybrid adiabatic cooling system in the free cooling mode; and activating the pump fluidly coupled to the inner conduit loop to propel the first cooling liquid to the chiller when the controller operates the hybrid adiabatic cooling system in the chiller mode (para 57) to add logic to the mode controls related to fluid level sensors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include pump controls as taught by GAO in the PAN et al invention in order to advantageously allow for pressure monitoring in the server rack.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PAN et al. in view of Costakis US 20240247818 A1 .
Re claim 4, PAN et al. fail to explicitly teach controller details.
Costakis teach determining, by the controller, whether to operate the hybrid adiabatic cooling system in a dry mode or a wet mode based on the temperature of the outdoor ambient air drawn through the hybrid adiabatic cooler to cool the first cooling liquid, wherein the hybrid adiabatic cooler does not moisturize the outdoor ambient air drawn through the hybrid adiabatic cooler when the controller operates the hybrid adiabatic cooling system in the dry mode (when free cooling is incorporated), and wherein the hybrid adiabatic cooler moisturizes the outdoor ambient air drawn through the hybrid adiabatic cooler when the controller operates the hybrid adiabatic cooling system in the wet mode (when mechanical cooling is incorporated; noting “moisturize the outdoor ambient air” is considered to be met by changing the temperature of the air, since it is well known in the art that changing air temperature changes air properties, specifically the amount of moisture than can be held in the air , therefore in a mechanical cooling mode the chiller is performing the heat exchange such that the “the hybrid adiabatic cooling system” is not required to be performing the heat exchange, and therefore the “the hybrid adiabatic cooling system” is not heating the air, and when the “the hybrid adiabatic cooling system” is relied upon in non mechanical modes, the temperature of air increases, therefore the warmer air can hold more moisture and air will have a higher relative humidity if the air is cooler, which meets the broad limitations “moisturize the outdoor ambient air”; paras 15-19) to provide multiple modes of operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include controller details as taught by Costakis in the PAN et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for energy efficiency in operation of different ambient temperatures.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PAN et al. in view of Shedd US 20210321526 A1.
Re claim 14, PAN et al. teach the first cooling liquid is water (paras 141-143, para 137).
PAN et al. fail to explicitly teach a dielectric coolant.
Shedd teach the second cooling liquid is a dielectric coolant (para 45) to cool electric components.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a dielectric coolant as taught by Shedd in the PAN et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for coolant compatible with electronic devices (para 45).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re claim 5, PAN et al. teach wherein the controller operates the hybrid adiabatic cooling system in the dry mode when the temperature of the outdoor ambient air (T dry predetermined) is less than a second threshold temperature (T sensed dry) but fail to teach
and in the wet mode when the temperature of the outdoor ambient air is above than the second threshold temperature.
Claims 5-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10231358 B1, US 20260032865 A1, US 20220369519 A1, GB 2642241 A, US 2023/0400255 Al .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763