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 has argued that neither Rimler or Pierson teach an enclosed space defined by a plurality of sidewalls, that is physical divisible and thermally separable into first and second plenums by at least one separation panel as recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 18. While applicant is correct that Pierson teaches a module that is open on one side (indicated by 126) applicant has not addressed that the base reference Rimler already teaches an enclosed space (Rimler 109) that is defined by a plurality of sidewalls (Rimler 131A-131D and the sidewalls of the trailer visible in figure 6) and Rimler teaches a separation panel (Rimler [0040]) to physically and thermally separate the enclosed space into two plenums (Rimler 126 and 128). Rimler is merely silent regarding the separation panel extending from the tops of the equipment enclosure and cooling unit to the ceiling and the exact orientation of the separation panel, both of which are taught by Pierson’s separation panel (Pierson 121).
Applicant has further argued that the combination of Rimler and Pierson would render Rimler unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Applicant has argued that combining the references would necessarily involve either blocking airflow through Rimler’s overhead air conditioning units or replacing Rimler’s overhead structure and removing the air conditioning units thereby blocking the air conditioning units from functioning or removing them entirely and reducing cooling capacity of the system. Examiner disagrees, Rimler’s overhead soffit structure already comprises a separation panel (Rimler [0040]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Pierson’s teachings of a separation panel that extends the full height from the equipment enclosures to the ceiling in a transverse direction can be applied to Rimler’s existing separation panels without removing or blocking the air conditioning units.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (“The soffit section also includes panels or other devices that provide isolation over the top of the racks between the hot aisle 126 and the cold aisle 128”, see Rimler paragraph [0040])) situated between the top panels of the equipment enclosure and the cooling unit and the ceiling.
Rimler teaches a separation panel but is unclear if the separation panel extends 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 a 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 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 modifying Rimler’s separation panel to incorporate Pierson's teachings of the 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 (“The soffit section also includes panels or other devices that provide isolation over the top of the racks between the hot aisle 126 and the cold aisle 128”, see Rimler paragraph [0040])) situated between the top panels of the equipment enclosure and the cooling unit and the ceiling;
• Wherein the row, in conjunction with the at least one separation panel, physically divides and thermally separates the enclosed space into a first plenum (Rimler 128) which 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 (“ the air conditioner 112 draws air from a hot aisle 126 and returns cool air to a cool aisle 128”, 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 (“the air conditioner 112 draws air from a hot aisle 126 and returns cool air to a cool aisle 128”, Rimler [0034], Examiner notes air drawn into the air conditioner in the hot aisle is hot).
Rimler teaches a separation panel but 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 a 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 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 modifying Rimler’s separation panel to incorporate Pierson's teachings of the 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 claim 13 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 page22) 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 DCR'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 18, 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 (“The soffit section also includes panels or other devices that provide isolation over the top of the racks between the hot aisle 126 and the cold aisle 128”, see Rimler paragraph [0040])) situated between the top panels of the equipment enclosure and the cooling unit and the ceiling.
Rimler teaches a separation panel but 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 and is further silent regarding an internal sidewall arranged to divide the space between a usable and an unneeded portion.
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 a 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 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
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 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