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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues “A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Ortenzi's rack-level logic with Czamara's modular air-handling architecture. Doing so would alter the fundamental airflow design and control framework of Czamara, which distributes conditioned air to multiple open aisles, whereas Ortenzi's control depends on localized, sealed-environment feedback. Such a modification would require substantial architectural and control-system redesign and would not represent a straightforward substitution of known elements. Moreover, even assuming combination were attempted, Ortenzi does not suggest application of its rack-specific temperature-differential logic to ceiling- or roof-level modules of the type disclosed in Czamara. The airflow and thermal response characteristics of those systems differ materially”. However, examiner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination as both Czamara and Ortenzi are in the field of cooling of electronic systems. Despite the structural differences between the two references, Czamara in view of Ortenzi only requires a straightforward modification of increasing fan speed if a measured temperature differential between inlet and discharge temperatures of the fan and heat exchanger assembly is greater than a predetermined temperature. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits of this control system regardless of whether it is an open or sealed environment, as both are concerned with cooling a target area of electronic systems.. Czamara already describes “Each control system may measure conditions such as temperature, pressure, flow rate, and humidity for the data center module, and adjust cooling system parameters for that data center module, such as fan speed, air source, mechanical cooling based on the measured conditions” [0066], and thus, this modification would not alter the fundamental airflow design and control framework or require substantial architectural and control-system redesign of Czamara, and comprises the motivation to make the combination despite Ortenzi not suggesting application of its temperature-differential logic to ceiling- or roof-level modules of the type disclosed in Czamara.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/07/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 35 states “the outdoor enclosure includes a weather-sealed aperture configured to channel air through the wall”. However, a “weather-sealed aperture” is not found in the original disclosure. [0047] of the 01/13/2020 specification describes “The cooling modules or assemblies 104 may be disposed within a weather-proofed enclosure”, but does not explicitly describe an aperture of the outdoor enclosure as weather-sealed. This arrangement is also not shown in the figures or elsewhere as originally filed.
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.
Claim(s) 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czamara (US20130199032A1) in view of Ortenzi (US20180376612A1).
Regarding claim 31, Czamara teaches
a data center cooling system (modular computing system 100) comprising:
a ceiling plenum (handling modules 104) including an aperture (supply vent 170, fig. 6);
a containment assembly (chamber 168, fig. 6) disposed above a hot aisle (data center module 102, fig. 1) formed by rows of information technology (IT) cabinets (row 116 of server racks) and configured to direct fluid from the hot aisle through the aperture (through supply vent 170 on fig. 6);
fan and heat exchanger assemblies (fans 120 and coil 166, fig. 6), each including a single fan and a single heat exchanger disposed directly adjacent to the single fan (While the figures show multiple fans 120 per coil 166, [0062] states “In one embodiment, each air handling module 104 includes a single motor fan”); and
a controller configured to adjust a speed of the fans of the fan and heat exchanger assemblies based on a temperature and a velocity of fluid flowing in the hot aisle or the containment assembly (“Each control system may measure conditions such as temperature, pressure, flow rate, and humidity for the data center module, and adjust cooling system parameters for that data center module, such as fan speed, air source, mechanical cooling based on the measured conditions” [0066]; “operation of one or more air handling modules of a cooling system may be controlled in response to one or more conditions”) [0069]
wherein the fan and heat exchanger assemblies are disposed directly adjacent to a wall of a building housing the IT cabinets (directly adjacent ceiling of data center module 102), and
wherein the fans of the fan and heat exchanger assemblies cause fluid to flow from the ceiling plenum, through the heat exchangers of the fan and heat exchanger assemblies, through an aperture in the wall, and to the IT cabinets (fig. 6, flow proceeds through supply air opening 170, fans 120, coil 166, and return air opening 162 successively)
Czamara does not teach
wherein if a measured temperature differential between inlet and discharge temperatures of the fan and heat exchanger assemblies is greater than a predetermined temperature, and the temperature is greater than a set point, the speed of the fans is increased
Ortenzi teaches
wherein if a measured temperature differential between inlet and discharge temperatures of the fan and heat exchanger assemblies is greater than a predetermined temperature (“controller, 129 monitors the discharge air and the return air from the equipment IT load within the self-contained rack. The controller modulates the chilled water valve 133 and fan as described herein, based on the specific temperature differential between the chilled air and the return air... A higher overall temperature, or differential between chilled air and return air may cause the fan to increase its speed” [0060]), and the temperature is greater than a set point (“A higher overall temperature, or differential between chilled air and return air may cause the fan to increase its speed” [0060]), the speed of the fans is increased (see [0060] above; as applied to the air handling modules 104 of Czamara, if measured temperature differential between inlet and discharge temperatures of the fan and heat exchanger assemblies is greater than a predetermined temperature, the speed of the fans 120 is increased)
Czamara and Ortenzi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they both are in the field of cooling of electronic systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system of Czamara to account for a measured temperature and measured temperature differential to determine fan speed, as disclosed by Ortenzi, in order to attain a more efficient and effective fan system to prevent component overheating.
Regarding claim 32, Czamara, as modified, teaches the data center cooling system of claim 31,
wherein the fan and heat exchanger assemblies include a first row of fan and heat exchanger assemblies and a second row of fan and heat exchanger assemblies adjacent to the first row of fan and heat exchanger assemblies (as shown on fig. 1, modular computing system 100 comprises three air handling modules 104 and three data center modules 102 adjacent to one another)
Regarding claim 33, Czamara, as modified, teaches the data center cooling system of claim 31,
wherein the fan and heat exchanger assemblies include three stacked fan and heat exchanger assemblies (as shown on fig. 1, modular computing system 100 comprises three air handling modules 104 adjacent to one another)
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czamara (US20130199032A1) in view of Ortenzi (US20180376612A1), in further view of Van Gilder (US20150234397A1).
Regarding claim 34, Czamara, as modified, teaches the data center cooling system of claim 31,
wherein the controller is further configured to determine a temperature differential based on measurements from both a first temperature sensor located in the hot aisle and a second temperature sensor located downstream of a heat exchanger (“temperature differential between the chilled air and the return air” [0060 of Ortenzi]; thus, temperature is sensed at a hot aisle (return air) and downstream of a heat exchanger (chilled air)) to adjust the speed of the fans in response to both temperature and air velocity values (“Each control system may measure conditions such as temperature, pressure, flow rate, and humidity for the data center module, and adjust cooling system parameters for that data center module, such as fan speed, air source, mechanical cooling based on the measured conditions”) [0066]
Czamara does not teach
temperature and air velocity values obtained from an anemometer disposed in the containment assembly
Van Gilder
temperature and air velocity values obtained from an anemometer disposed in the containment assembly (“the inlet measurement section 610 includes a hot wire anemometer configured to measure velocity and temperature of the air prior to entering the server 612” [0108]
Czamara teaches measuring temperature and flow rate in the system, however does not explicitly describe the sensing means used to do so. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the hot wire anemometer configured to measure velocity and temperature of the air prior to entering the server of Van Gilder to Czamara, as modified, in order to use a single sensing unit to monitor both the temperature and air velocity in the system, thus reducing the number of components necessary to the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 10, 22, and 23-30 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claims 1 and 24, the subject matter not found includes “each modular fan and heat exchanger assembly including within an enclosure assembly a single fan and a single heat exchanger disposed directly adjacent to the single fan”, in combination with the other elements of the claim. The closest art of record is Roy (US8523643B1) in view of Van Gilder (US20150234397A1), Ortenzi (US20180376612A1), and Rozzi (US20080306635A1), as applied in the office action dated 05/08/2024, however a modification to include this claim language would have been non-obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, Czamara in view of Ortenzi does not teach “wherein the modular fan and heat exchanger assemblies are disposed inside an enclosure outside of a building housing the IT racks and directly adjacent to a wall of the building”, and a modification to include this claim language would have been non-obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. No other prior art was found to teach the claim in its entirety.
Claims 2-4, 10, 22 and 23 are allowable based on their dependence to claim 1. Claims 25-30 are allowable based on their dependence to claim 24.
Claim 36 is 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 36, the subject matter not found includes “wherein the fan and heat exchanger assemblies are modularly stackable in at least two vertical rows and horizontally connectable to expand capacity, and wherein the data center cooling system includes a control module operatively coupled to the fan and heat exchanger assemblies and configured to control the speed of one or more fans associated with each assembly based on a temperature differential between an inlet temperature and a discharge temperature of the fan and heat exchanger assemblies, and to modify the speed of the fans responsive to temperature and velocity measurements obtained from an anemometer disposed in a containment assembly”, in combination with the other elements of the claim. The closest art of record is Czamara (US20130199032A1) in view of Ortenzi(US20180376612A1) and Van Gilder (US20150234397A1), as applied in the office action above, however a modification to include this claim language would have been non-obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. No other prior art was found to teach the claim in its entirety.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRETT P. MALLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8am to 5pm.
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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571)272-6460. 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.
/BRETT P. MALLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762