DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning Rimler being silent regarding the separation panel extending from the top of the cabinets to the ceiling and being disposed transversely are persuasive. A new rejection has been written in view of Rimler and Pierson.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9-11, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rimler et al. (US 2006/0082263 A1) in view of Pierson et al. (US 2011/0122561 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rimler discloses a data processing equipment structure (Rimler 100) comprising:
A plurality of sidewalls (Rimler 131A-131D and sidewalls of trailer 102), a floor (floor of trailer 102), and a ceiling (ceiling of trailer 102), which together define an enclosed space (Rimler 109);
At least one equipment enclosure (Rimler 115 and 117) and at least one cooling unit (Rimler 112), each supported by the floor and including a top panel (see Rimler figure 5) and the at least one equipment enclosure and at least one cooling unit being arranged in a side-to-side relationship (see Rimler figure 5) that extends from one sidewall to another sidewall (see Rimler figures 5 and 6); and
At least one separation panel (see Rimler paragraph [0040])) situated between the top panels of the equipment enclosure and the cooling unit and the ceiling.
Rimler is silent regarding the at least one separation panel extending from the top of the equipment enclosure and cooling unit to the ceiling and is further silent regarding the panel being disposed transversely.
However, Pierson teaches a data processing equipment structure (Pierson 100) comprising a plurality of sidewalls (Pierson 122 and 126), a floor (Pierson 104) , and a ceiling (see Pierson figure 1) which define an enclosed space (see Pierson figure 1); at least one equipment enclosure (Pierson 110) supported by the floor and including a top panel (see Pierson figure 1); at least one separation panel (Pierson 121) extending from the respective top panels of the at least one equipment enclosure to the ceiling (see Pierson figure 1)and is disposed transversely (see Pierson figure 1), wherein the top panel and the ceiling are generally parallel (see Pierson figure 1), wherein the row in conjunction with the at least one separation panel, physically divides and thermally separates the enclosed space into first and second plenums (Pierson 123 and 124)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Rimler’s data processing equipment structure by implementing Pierson’s teachings of a separation panel extending between the top of an equipment rack and the ceiling in a transverse direction to produce a predictable result of improving system efficiency by preventing mixing of air between the hot and cold plenums.
Regarding claim 2, Rimler and Pierson as applied to claim 1 teach the volume of the first plenum (Rimler 126) is less than half the volume of the enclosed space (Rimler 109) (see Rimler figure 6).
Regarding claim 4, Rimler and Pierson as applied to claim 1 teach the at least one equipment enclosure (Rimler 115 and 117) is a plurality of equipment enclosures (see Rimler figures 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 6, Rimler and Pierson as applied to claim 4 further teach one of the plurality of equipment enclosures is positioned on either side of the at least one cooling unit (see Rimler figures 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 9, Rimler and Pierson as applied to claim 1 teach the first plenum is an air cooled plenum (Rimler 128) and the second plenum is a heated air plenum (Rimler 126).
Regarding claim 10, Rimler discloses a data processing equipment structure (Rimler 100) comprising:
A plurality of sidewalls (Rimler 131A-131D and sidewalls of trailer 102), a floor (floor of trailer 102), and a ceiling (ceiling of trailer 102), which together define an enclosed space (Rimler 109);
At least one equipment enclosure (Rimler 115 and 117) and at least one cooling unit (Rimler 112), each supported by the floor and including a top panel (see Rimler figure 5) and the at least one equipment enclosure and at least one cooling unit being arranged in a side-to-side relationship (see Rimler figure 5) that extends from one sidewall to another sidewall (see Rimler figures 5 and 6); and
At least one separation panel (see Rimler paragraph [0040])) situated between the top panels of the equipment enclosure and the cooling unit and the ceiling;
Wherein the first plenum (Rimler 128) extends from the floor to the ceiling (Examiner notes Rimler describes the plenum as an aisle and it therefore extends from the floor to the ceiling) along a front of a row (see Rimler figure 6) and includes a supply of cooled air (Rimler [0034]), and a second plenum (Rimler 126) which extends from floor to ceiling (Examiner notes Rimler describes the plenum as an aisle and it therefore extends from the floor to the ceiling) along a rear of the row (see Rimler figure 6) and includes heated exhaust air (Rimler [0034]).
Rimler is silent regarding the at least one separation panel extending from the top of the equipment enclosure and cooling unit to the ceiling and is further silent regarding the panel being disposed transversely.
However, Pierson teaches a data processing equipment structure (Pierson 100) comprising a plurality of sidewalls (Pierson 122 and 126), a floor (Pierson 104) , and a ceiling (see Pierson figure 1) which define an enclosed space (see Pierson figure 1); at least one equipment enclosure (Pierson 110) supported by the floor and including a top panel (see Pierson figure 1); at least one separation panel (Pierson 121) extending from the respective top panels of the at least one equipment enclosure to the ceiling (see Pierson figure 1)and is disposed transversely (see Pierson figure 1), wherein the top panel and the ceiling are generally parallel (see Pierson figure 1), wherein the row in conjunction with the at least one separation panel, physically divides and thermally separates the enclosed space into first and second plenums (Pierson 123 and 124)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Rimler’s data processing equipment structure by implementing Pierson’s teachings of a separation panel extending between the top of an equipment rack and the ceiling in a transverse direction to produce a predictable result of improving system efficiency by preventing mixing of air between the hot and cold plenums.
Regarding claim 11, Rimler and Pierson as applied to claim 10 teach a volume of the first plenum (Rimler 128) is less than half of a volume of the enclosed space (Rimler 109, see Rimler figure 6).
Regarding claim 13, Rimler and Pierson as applied to claim 10 further teach the at least one equipment enclosure (Rimler 115 and 117) is a plurality of equipment enclosures (see Rimler figures 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 15, Rimler and Pierson as applied to claim13 further teach one of the plurality of equipment enclosures is positioned on either side of the at least one cooling unit (see Rimler figures 5 and 6).
Claim 3 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rimler et al. (US 2006/0082263 A1) and Pierson et al. (US 2011/0122561 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heydari et al. (US 2006/0082263 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Rimler and Pierson as applied to claim 1 are silent regarding the air pressure of the plenums.
However, Heydari teaches a system for cooling computer servers (Heydari 100) comprising a plurality of equipment enclosures (Heydari 105) cooled by an airflow that flows from a cold plenum (Heydari 110) through the equipment enclosures into a hot plenum (Heydari 120)(see Heydari figure 2). Heydari further teaches the cold plenum is pressurized (Heydari [0014]) to cause air to flow through the equipment enclosures to the hot aisle to cool the equipment. Heydari further teaches that the pressure differential allows cooling without relying on individual fans ton each piece of equipment thereby improving power efficiency (Heydari [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Rimler’s data processing equipment structure to incorporate Heydari’s teachings of the use of the cooling system’s fans to pressurize the cold plenum to improve efficiency by relying upon the cooling system’s larger fans to pressurize the plenum to dire airflow instead of smaller less efficiency individual fans.
Claims 5, 7, and 8 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rimler et al. (US 2006/0082263 A1) and Pierson et al. (US 2011/0122561 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Data Center in a Row Produce Brochure (hereafter referred to as DCR).
Regarding claim 5, Rimler and Pierson as applied to claim 4 are silent regarding the cooling unit being located at the end of a row.
However, DCR teaches a data processing system that is modular wherein a single cooling unit is capable of cooling up to 7 cabinets from the end of the row (see DCR page 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Rimler’s data processing equipment structure to incorporate DCR’s teachings of a cooling unit located at the end of the row for a data processing system to allow the cooling unit to be located closer to power supply equipment to reduce installation costs.
Regarding claim 7, Rimler and Pierson as applied to claim 4 are silent regarding a plurality of cooling units being situated in the row.
However, DCR teaches a data processing system that is modular wherein a single cooling unit is capable of cooling up to 7 cabinets from the end of the row (see DCR page 22) and that additional cooling units can be used in configurations for higher numbers of equipment enclosures including an arrangement that includes cooling units at each end and a centrally located cooling unit (see DCR page 22) to provide N+1 redundancy allowing continuous operation while one of the cooling units is repaired/serviced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Rimler’s system to utilize DSR’s teachings of a plurality of redundant cooling units within the row including one centrally located between two equipment enclosures to provide adequate cooling for higher load and provide redundancy to allow continuous operation while one of the cooling units is serviced/repaired.
Regarding claim 8, Rimler, Pierson, and DCR as applied to claim 7 teach each of the plurality of cooling units is located within the row proximate to one or more equipment enclosures that house electronic equipment (see DCR page 22).
Claim 12 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rimler et al. (US 2006/0082263 A1) and Pierson et al. (US 2011/0122561 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Heydari et al. (US 2006/0082263 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Rimler and Pierson as applied to claim 10 are silent regarding the air pressure of the plenums.
However, Heydari teaches a system for cooling computer servers (Heydari 100) comprising a plurality of equipment enclosures (Heydari 105) cooled by an airflow that flows from a cold plenum (Heydari 110) through the equipment enclosures into a hot plenum (Heydari 120)(see Heydari figure 2). Heydari further teaches the cold plenum is pressurized (Heydari [0014]) to cause air to flow through the equipment enclosures to the hot aisle to cool the equipment. Heydari further teaches that the pressure differential allows cooling without relying on individual fans ton each piece of equipment thereby improving power efficiency (Heydari [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Rimler’s data processing equipment structure to incorporate Heydari’s teachings of the use of the cooling system’s fans to pressurize the cold plenum to improve efficiency by relying upon the cooling system’s larger fans to pressurize the plenum to dire airflow instead of smaller less efficiency individual fans.
Claims 14, 16, and 17 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rimler et al. (US 2006/0082263 A1) and Pierson et al. (US 2011/0122561 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Data Center in a Row Produce Brochure (hereafter referred to as DCR).
Regarding claim 14, Rimler and Pierson as applied to claim 13 are silent regarding the cooling unit being located at the end of a row.
However, DCR teaches a data processing system that is modular wherein a single cooling unit is capable of cooling up to 7 cabinets from the end of the row (see DCR page 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Rimler’s data processing equipment structure to incorporate DCR’s teachings of a cooling unit located at the end of the row for a data processing system to allow the cooling unit to be located closer to power supply equipment to reduce installation costs.
Regarding claim 16, Rimler and Pierson as applied to claim 13 are silent regarding a plurality of cooling units being situated in the row.
However, DCR teaches a data processing system that is modular wherein a single cooling unit is capable of cooling up to 7 cabinets from the end of the row (see DCR page 22) and that additional cooling units can be used in configurations for higher numbers of equipment enclosures including an arrangement that includes cooling units at each end and a centrally located cooling unit (see DCR page 22) to provide N+1 redundancy allowing continuous operation while one of the cooling units is repaired/serviced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Rimler’s system to utilize DSR’s teachings of a plurality of redundant cooling units within the row including one centrally located between two equipment enclosures to provide adequate cooling for higher load and provide redundancy to allow continuous operation while one of the cooling units is serviced/repaired.
Regarding claim 17, Rimler, Pierson, and DCR as applied to claim 16 teach each of the plurality of cooling units is located within the row proximate to one or more equipment enclosures that house electronic equipment (see DCR page 22).
Claim 18-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rimler et al. (US 2006/0082263 A1), Pierson et al. (US 2011/0122561 A1), and Webb (US 2008/0209827 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rimler discloses a data processing equipment structure (Rimler 100) comprising:
A plurality of sidewalls (Rimler 131A-131D and sidewalls of trailer 102), a floor (floor of trailer 102), and a ceiling (ceiling of trailer 102), which together define an enclosed space (Rimler 109);
At least one equipment enclosure (Rimler 115 and 117) and at least one cooling unit (Rimler 112), each supported by the floor and including a top panel (see Rimler figure 5) and the at least one equipment enclosure and at least one cooling unit being arranged in a side-to-side relationship (see Rimler figure 5) that extends from one sidewall to another sidewall (see Rimler figures 5 and 6); and
At least one separation panel (see Rimler paragraph [0040])) situated between the top panels of the equipment enclosure and the cooling unit and the ceiling.
Rimler is silent regarding the at least one separation panel extending from the top of the equipment enclosure and cooling unit to the ceiling and is further silent regarding the panel being disposed transversely.
However, Pierson teaches a data processing equipment structure (Pierson 100) comprising a plurality of sidewalls (Pierson 122 and 126), a floor (Pierson 104) , and a ceiling (see Pierson figure 1) which define an enclosed space (see Pierson figure 1); at least one equipment enclosure (Pierson 110) supported by the floor and including a top panel (see Pierson figure 1); at least one separation panel (Pierson 121) extending from the respective top panels of the at least one equipment enclosure to the ceiling (see Pierson figure 1)and is disposed transversely (see Pierson figure 1), wherein the top panel and the ceiling are generally parallel (see Pierson figure 1), wherein the row in conjunction with the at least one separation panel, physically divides and thermally separates the enclosed space into first and second plenums (Pierson 123 and 124)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Rimler’s data processing equipment structure by implementing Pierson’s teachings of a separation panel extending between the top of an equipment rack and the ceiling in a transverse direction to produce a predictable result of improving system efficiency by preventing mixing of air between the hot and cold plenums.
Further, Webb teaches a movable temporary partition system comprising a wall (Webb 10) formed of panels (Webb 14 and 15) that is secured to the floor and ceiling via tracks (Webb 40 and 4) and pressure feet (Webb 37 and 34) to secure the wall in place in a removeable manner to temporarily partition a room (Webb [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Rimler’s system to utilize Webb’s teachings of a moveable temporary partition to subdivide the enclosed space to produce a predictable result of improving efficiency by separating the space into a conditioned space and an unconditioned unneeded portion.
Regarding claim 19, Rimler, Pierson, and Webb as applied to claim 18 teach the internal wall is moveable (Webb [0024]). Examiner notes that a wall being temporary and capable of being installed, removed, and stored inherently means the wall can be moved.
Regarding claim 20, Rimler, Pierson, and Webb as applied to claim 18 discloses that the volume of the first plenum (Rimler 126) is less than half the volume of the enclosed space (Rimler 109)(see Rimler figure 6).
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762