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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the Holyoake reference fails to disclose a thermal baffle and coverings that do not correspond to a computing device and that teaching reference Papen further fails to teach a plurality of coverings not corresponding to one of the computing devices and that the rejection relies upon an improper combination that would require modifying Papen’s baffle to include unused openings as taught by Holyoake. Examiner disagrees with this interpretation of the previous rejection. The rejection of the previous office action relies upon Holyoake as a base reference to teach a data center with racks that comprise a plurality of openings corresponding to computing devices and a plurality of openings that do not correspond to computing devices that are sealed by blanking panels to prevent undesired airflow from the hot aisle to the cold aisle and Papen has been relied upon to teach utilizing a wall as a thermal baffle comprising openings to separate the hot and cold aisle into chambers to improve efficiency by eliminating airflow between the aisles and to teach covering over all openings that are responsive to air pressure to eliminate the need for manually installing blanking plates to prevent undesired airflow.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holyoake et al. (US 2021/0136959 A1) in view of Papen et al. (US 2020/0042054 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Holyoake discloses a data center comprising a housing (Holyoake 10) forming an interior (see Holyoake figure 1) including an air intake aisle (Holyoake 18), a plurality of computing devices (Holyoake 15) contained within racks (Holyoake 20), an exhaust aisle (Holyoake 16), and the racks comprise a first plurality of openings which correspond to computing devices (see Holyoake figure 3A) and a second plurality of openings that correspond to coverings in the form of blanking panels (Holyoake 26) to seal openings to prevent undesirable airflow from the hot aisle to the cold aisle (Holyoake [0026]).
Holyoake is silent regarding a thermal baffle with a plurality of coverings, an air intake chamber, and an exhaust chamber.
However, Papen teaches a data center (Papen 400) comprising a housing defined by exterior walls (Papen 402) forming an interior, the interior including: an air intake chamber (Papen 406), a plurality of computing devices (Papen 440), an exhaust chamber (Papen 408), and a thermal baffle (Papen 428) positioned between the air intake chamber and the exhaust chamber (see Papen figure 8), the thermal baffle including a plurality of openings (see Papen figure 9) corresponding to the plurality of computing devices, and a second plurality of openings (see Papen figure 9) corresponding to a plurality of coverings (Papen 474), the plurality of coverings configured to restrict airflow from the exhaust chamber to the air intake chamber by way of the thermal baffle (Papen [0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Holyoake's data center by incorporating Papen's teachings of a thermal baffle separating the intake aisle and exhaust aisle turning them into separate chambers to produce a predict able result of improving efficiency by preventing undesired airflow and to further improve the system by applying Papen's coverings to all of the openings to produce a predictable result of preventing backflow through any openings or unpowered computing devices without requiring manually installing a blanking plate.
Regarding claim 5, Holyoake and Papen as applied to claim 1 further teach the plurality of coverings (Papen 474) are configured to seal the second plurality of openings in response to an air pressure differential of the data center (Papen [0095]) that occurs when there is no airflow through the opening.
Regarding claim 6, Holyoake and Papen as applied to claim 5 further teach the plurality of computing devices (Papen 440) are located within the air intake chamber (Papen [0085]), the first plurality of coverings is located on an exhaust chamber side of the thermal baffle (Papen [0096]), and a second plurality of coverings (see Papen figure 9) are located on the exhaust chamber side of the thermal baffle and correspond to the first plurality of openings. Examiner notes that Papen teaches all openings have a corresponding covering.
Regarding claim 8, Holyoake discloses a method for cooling a data center comprising providing
an air intake aisle (Holyoake 18), a plurality of computing devices (Holyoake 15) contained within racks (Holyoake 20), an exhaust aisle (Holyoake 16), and the racks comprise a first plurality of openings which are aligned with computing devices (see Holyoake figure 3A) and a second plurality of openings that align with coverings in the form of blanking panels (Holyoake 26) to seal openings to prevent undesirable airflow from the hot aisle to the cold aisle (Holyoake [0026]).
Holyoake is silent regarding separating the intake aisle and exhaust aisle.
However, Papen teaches a method for air cooling a data center, the method comprising: separating an air intake chamber (Papen 406) and an exhaust chamber (Papen 408) using a thermal baffle (Papen 428) comprising a plurality of openings (see Papen figure 9); aligning a plurality of computing devices (Papen 440) with a portion of the plurality of openings (see Papen figure 9); moving air into the exhaust chamber (Papen [0088]); and restricting, using a plurality of coverings (Papen 474) corresponding to a remaining portion of the plurality of openings (see Papen figure 9), air backflow from the exhaust chamber to the air intake chamber through the thermal baffle (Papen [0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to
modify Holyoake's method by incorporating Papen's teachings of a thermal baffle separating the intake aisle and exhaust aisle turning them into separate chambers to produce a predictable result of
improving efficiency by preventing undesired airflow and to further improve the system by applying Papen's coverings to all of the openings to produce a predictable result of preventing backflow through any openings or unpowered computing devices without requiring manually installing a blanking plate.
Regarding claim 9, Holyoake and Papen as applied to claim 8 discloses the step of moving air into the exhaust chamber includes operating a plurality of cooling fans of the plurality of computing devices (Papen [0088]).
Regarding claim 10, Holyoake and Papen as applied to claim 9 teach the restricting step includes sealing the plurality of coverings in response to an airflow generated by operating the plurality of cooling fans (Papen [0095]).
Regarding claim 12, Holyoake and Papen as applied to claim 8 discloses restricting the air backflow in response to an air pressure differential of the data center (Papen [0095]) that occurs when there is no airflow through the openings.
Regarding claim 13, Papen as applied to claim 12 discloses the computing devices (Papen 440) are positioned within the air intake chamber (Papen [0085]).
Regarding claim 15, Holyoake discloses a data center comprising a plurality of computing
devices (Holyoake 15) contained within racks (Holyoake 20), and the racks comprise a first plurality of openings which correspond to computing devices (see Holyoake figure 3A) and a second plurality of openings that correspond to coverings in the form of blanking panels (Holyoake 26) to seal openings to prevent undesirable airflow from the hot aisle to the cold aisle (Holyoake [0026]).
Holyoake is silent regarding a thermal baffle with a plurality of coverings including first covering configured to seal the first openings and second coverings configured to cover the second plurality of openings.
However, Papen teaches a data center (Papen 400) comprising a plurality of computing devices
(Papen 440), and a thermal baffle (Papen 428) positioned between an air intake chamber and the exhaust chamber (see Papen figure 8), the thermal baffle including a plurality of openings (see Papen figure 9) corresponding to the plurality of computing devices, and each opening having a covering (Papen 474), the plurality of coverings configured to restrict airflow from the exhaust chamber to the air intake chamber by way of the thermal baffle (Papen [0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to
modify Holyoake's data center by incorporating Papen's teachings of a thermal baffle separating the intake aisle and exhaust aisle turning them into separate chambers to produce a predictable result of improving efficiency by preventing undesired airflow and to further improve the system by applying Papen's coverings to all of the openings to produce a predictable result of preventing backflow through any openings or unpowered computing devices without requiring manually installing a blanking plate.
Examiner notes that applying Papen's coverings to all of Holyoake's openings will result in two sets of coverings, a first covering for the first openings aligned with the computing devices and the second set of openings that are not aligned with a computing device.
Regarding claim 16, Holyoake and Papen as applied to claim 15 teach the at least one fan is a cooling fan of the plurality of computing devices (Papen [0088]).
Regarding claim 17, Holyoake and Papen as applied to claim 15 teach the at least one fan is configured to draw an airflow (Papen [0088]) through the thermal baffle which will create a slight increase in pressure on the downstream side.
Regarding claim 18, Holyoake and Papen as applied to claim 17 further teach the covering (Papen 474) is configured to seal the second plurality of openings in response to an air pressure differential of the data center (Papen [0095]) that occurs when there is airflow through the other openings.
Regarding claim 19, Holyoake and Papen as applied to claim 15 further teach the data center comprises an air intake chamber (Papen 406) and an exhaust chamber (Papen 408), the air intake chamber and exhaust chamber are separated by the thermal baffle (see Papen figure 8).
Regarding claim 20, Papen as applied to claim 19 further discloses the data center comprises a
housing formed by exterior walls (Papen 402) that form an interior containing the air intake chamber, the exhaust chamber, and the thermal baffle (see Papen figure 8), wherein the covering partially obstructs airflow through the thermal baffle from the exhaust chamber to the air intake chamber (Papen [0095])
Regarding claim 21, Holyoake discloses a data center comprising a housing (Holyoake 10) forming an interior (see Holyoake figure 1) including an air intake aisle (Holyoake 18), a plurality of computing devices (Holyoake 15) contained within racks (Holyoake 20), an exhaust aisle (Holyoake 16), and the racks comprise a first plurality of openings which correspond to computing devices (see Holyoake figure 3A) and a second plurality of openings that correspond to coverings in the form of blanking panels (Holyoake 26) to seal openings to prevent undesirable airflow from the hot aisle to the cold aisle (Holyoake [0026]).
Holyoake is silent regarding a thermal baffle separating the interior into an air intake chamber and an air exhaust chamber and the covering being biased to a closed position and moving away from the closed position in response to a pressure differential to restrict airflow from the exhaust chamber to the intake chamber.
However, Papen teaches a data center (Papen 400) comprising a housing defined by exterior walls (Papen 402) forming an interior, the interior including: an air intake chamber (Papen 406), a plurality of computing devices (Papen 440), an exhaust chamber (Papen 408), and a thermal baffle (Papen 428) positioned between the air intake chamber and the exhaust chamber (see Papen figure 8), the thermal baffle including a plurality of openings (see Papen figure 9) corresponding to the plurality of computing devices, and a second plurality of openings (see Papen figure 9) corresponding to a plurality of coverings (Papen 474), the plurality of coverings configured to restrict airflow from the exhaust chamber to the air intake chamber by way of the thermal baffle in response to airflow (Papen [0095]). Examiner notes that a flap opening and closing in response to airflow is responding to the pressure differential between the two sides.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Holyoake's data center by incorporating Papen's teachings of a thermal baffle separating the intake aisle and exhaust aisle turning them into separate chambers to produce a predict able result of improving efficiency by preventing undesired airflow and to further improve the system by applying Papen's coverings to all of the openings to produce a predictable result of preventing backflow through any openings or unpowered computing devices without requiring manually installing a blanking plate.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holyoake et al. (US 2021/0136959 A1) and Papen et al. (US 2020/0042054 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Simmons et al. (US 2020/0033837 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Holyoake and Papen as applied to claim 1 are silent regarding an exhaust fan or an intake fan.
However, Simmons teaches a data center comprising an exhaust fan (Simmons 32) configured to
draw air from an exhaust chamber (Simmons 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Holyoake and Papen's data center to incorporate Simmons teachings of an exhaust fan connected to the exhaust chamber to produce additional airflow through the system to improve cooling capacity.
Regarding claim 3, Holyoake, Papen and Simmons as applied to claim 2 teach the data center's computing devices (Papen 440) comprise a plurality of cooling fans (Papen [0088]).
Regarding claim 4, Holyoake, Papen and Simmons as applied to claim 3 are silent regarding a control system.
However, Simmons further teaches the exhaust fan (Simmons 32) is controlled by a control system (Simmons [0103]) configured to maintain a desired air pressure differential between the exhaust chamber and intake chamber.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Holyoake and Papen's system to utilize Simmons teachings of a control system to control the exhaust fan to maintain a desired pressure differential to optimize the cooling performance of the data center.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holyoake et al. (US
2021/0136959 A1) and Papen et al. (US 2020/0042054 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wiederhold et al. (US 2021/0153388 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Holyoake and Papen as applied to claim 1 are silent regarding the computing devices being partially located in the exhaust chamber.
However, Weiderhold teaches a data center (Wiederhold 100) comprising an intake chamber (Wiederhold 114) and an exhaust chamber (Wiederhold 116) separated by a thermal baffle (Wiederhold 118) and the computing devices (Wiederhold 104) are partially located within the exhaust chamber (see Weiderhold figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to
modify Holyoake and Papen's system by incorporating Wiederhold's teachings of computing devices being partially located within the exhaust chamber to increase the space in the intake chamber to allow easier service access to the front of the computing devices in the intake chamber.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holyoake et al. (US 2021/0136959 A1) and Papen et al. (US 2020/0042054 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Simmons et al. (US 2020/0033837 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Holyoake and Papen as applied to claim 9 teaches restricting the air backflow by sealing the coverings in response to an air pressure differential of the data center (Papen [0095]) that occurs when there is no airflow through the openings.
Holyoake and Papen as applied to claim 9 are silent regarding an exhaust fan.
However, Simmons teaches a data center comprising an exhaust fan (Simmons 32) configured to draw air from an exhaust chamber (Simmons 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Holyoake and
Papen's data center to incorporate Simmons teachings of an exhaust fan connected to the exhaust chamber to produce additional airflow through the system to improve cooling capacity.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holyoake et al. (US 2021/0136959 A1) and Papen et al. (US 2020/0042054 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Delany et al. (US 2019/0286601 A1).
Holyoake and Papen are silent regarding removing computing devices from the system.
However, Delany teaches a server rack system comprising a hot swap controller system (Delany 115) to allow removal of servers from the system during operation (Delany [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system to incorporate Delany's teachings of a hot swap controller system to allow computing devices to be removed from the system without requiring a system shutdown so that the computing devices can be repaired and/or replaced.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holyoake et al. (US 2021/0136959 A1) and Papen et al. (US 2020/0042054 A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Simmons et al. (US 2020/0033837 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Holyoake and Papen as applied to claim 21 are silent regarding an exhaust fan or an intake fan.
However, Simmons teaches a data center comprising an exhaust fan (Simmons 32) configured to draw air from an exhaust chamber (Simmons 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Holyoake and Papen's data center to incorporate Simmons teachings of an exhaust fan connected to the exhaust chamber to produce additional airflow through the system to improve cooling capacity.
Regarding claim 23, Holyoake, Papen and Simmons as applied to claim 22 teach the data center's computing devices (Papen 440) comprise a plurality of cooling fans (Papen [0088]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R BRAWNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm EST.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/CHARLES R BRAWNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights