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 Amendment
The amendments filed 11/11/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claims 2-12, & 14-20 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Regarding “Rejections Under 35 USC §112 (b)”:
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 12 line 17 to page 13 line 23, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections due to claim 1 & 13 limitations directed towards "wherein the plurality of sensors (420) is configured to transmit an infrared signal (IR) to each rack" have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 13 lines 13-16):
“The transmitter portion emits an infrared signal toward the rack, and the receiver portion detects the reflected signal from the rack. For example, proximity sensors, motion detectors, and IR-based object detection systems often include an emitter and a receiver within a single sensor housing.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
It is not clear why or what signal is being sent from the sensor toward the rack. A signal is data encoded in a transmitting medium; for example, data comprising instructions encoded in Infrared Radiation (IR).
The Applicant discloses (page 14 lines 7-10) that “the IR sensor described in the present disclosure uses a simple reflection-based mechanism to detect the presence or position of the rack” and that (page 14 lines 14-15) “the reflected intensity and/or angle inherently form a measurable signal corresponding to the physical interaction of the emitted IR light with the track surface.”. If there were no signal within the reflected light then there would be no determination to be made based on the reflected light; and if there is no processing within the rack then there is no reason to send a signal to the rack. Therefore the Applicant likely intends a limitation to the effect of ‘IR light is used to illuminate a rack or component on the rack and the reflected light is thereby encoded with a signal indicating presence of a rack’.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 12 line 17 to page 13 line 23, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections due to claim 1 & 13 limitations directed towards "wherein the plurality of sensors (420) is configured to transmit an infrared signal (IR) to each rack" have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 13 lines 12-19):
“Thus, each “sensor” is a composite component that includes both an IR transmitter and an IR receiver.”
&
“Accordingly, in the claims that recite “the plurality of sensors (420) is configured to transmit an infrared signal (IR) to each rack,” the term “sensor” inherently refers to this integrated transceiver configuration.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2111:
“Claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification”
&
“The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach.”
Reference entry of
“Handbook of Modern Sensors” - Chapter 1.1 Sensors, Signals, and Systems (Fraden) page 2: “A sensor is a device that receives a stimulus and responds with an electrical signal.”
Analysis:
The instant application in para 0017 states “and each IR sensor may include an IR transmitter and an IR receiver”. This does not redefine the use of the term ‘sensor’ to have a new meaning throughout the specifications (including the claims). First, the specification states “may include an IR transmitter”, but ‘may’ does not limit the scope. Second, this section is preceded by the phrase “in an embodiment”, and therefore does not limit the scope beyond that particular embodiment. Third, this section does not say that the term is being redefined to mean something other than the standard interpretation. Fourth, the standard interpretation of the word ‘sensor’ is (as per Fraden) “A sensor is a device that receives a stimulus and responds with an electrical signal.”.
Conclusion:
One of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret a ‘sensor’ as inherently including “integrated transceiver configuration” nor that the sensor would be “configured to transmit”.
Note: in at least para 0068: “In an exemplary embodiment, the IR Transmitter (418) may include an infrared emitting diode but not limited to the like.” There would be sufficient support for an amendment to the independent claims 1 & 13 indicating that there is an IR transmitter with infrared diode.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 13 line 24 to page 15 line 3, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections due to claim 3 & 15 limitations directed towards "wherein each IR sensor comprises an IR transmitter (418) and an IR receiver (416), wherein the IR transmitter (418) is configured to transmit an IR signal to a rack and the IR receiver (416) is configured to receive a reflected IR signal from the rack," have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 14 lines 6-10):
“Applicant submits that the claimed IR sensor system is distinct from a camera-based system. Cameras typically capture images and require complex processing. In contrast, the IR sensor described in the present disclosure uses a simple reflection-based mechanism to detect the presence or position of the rack, which is more efficient and cost-effective for the intended application.”
& (page 14 lines 11-15):
“The Office’s interpretation that “IR light is reflected back with a signal encoded in IR light” is respectfully not consistent with the intended and disclosed functionality. In the present disclosure, the reflected light is not encoded with additional information by the rack. Instead, the reflected intensity and/or angle inherently form a measurable signal corresponding to the physical interaction of the emitted IR light with the rack surface.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2111:
“Claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification”
&
“The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach.”
Reference entry of
“Handbook of Modern Sensors” - Chapter 3.1 Sensors for Mobile Communication Devices (Fraden) page 36:” These currently built-in sensors are: Imaging camera—takes still photo and video. …”
Reference entry of
“Handbook of Modern Sensors” - Chapter 3.1.2 Integration (Fraden) page 38: Fig. 3.2 ”thermal radiation (IR) sensing module for MCD”
Analysis:
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation and consistent with the reference of Fraden a camera is a sensor.
As per Fraden Fig. 3.2 a camera can include IR sensing capabilities. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of an IR sensor includes a camera with IR sensing capabilities.
“measurable signal corresponding to the physical interaction of the emitted IR light with the rack surface” is a specific way in which “IR light is reflected back with a signal encoded in IR light”. If there were no data encoded in the reflected signal then there would be no information for the system to process.
Conclusion:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the claims are broad enough to include a camera with IR capabilities, and the image/signal that the camera receives is encoded/(form a measurable signal corresponding to the physical interaction) with a signal encoded in IR light. Encoding a signal in a medium such as IR light does not necessarily require active processing by computing elements, a reflection can encode information (create a signal) into the IR light medium.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 15 line 4 to page 16 line 2, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections due to claim 3 & 15 limitations directed towards "wherein the plurality of sensors (420) is a plurality of IR sensors placed in a predefined position in each rack," have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 15 lines 13-17):
“Applicant submits that the term “predefined position” in the present disclosure refers to a known, fixed, and repeatable location within each rack where the IR sensors are installed. This is not an arbitrary or ambiguous or random placement or determined at runtime, rather, it is a position that is determined during the design or manufacturing phase of the rack system to ensure consistent sensor performance across multiple racks.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See “35 USC 112(b) or 35 USC 112(pre-AIA ), Second Paragraph” “Statement of Statutory Basis”:
“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.”
Analysis:
Since the “predefined position” is not arbitrary and since it is part of the design and since it ensures consistent sensor performance, it should be fully disclosed. Otherwise one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how “to make and use the same,” & “carrying out his invention.”. It is not clear what the claims mean by “a predefined position” because the claims say no more than that these variables are “predefined”, but not how they are predefined.
Conclusion:
To implement the claimed invention one of ordinary skill in the art would need to know what “predefined” variables implies (how is the defining done?). Otherwise, the specification would not “conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter”.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 16 line 3 to page 17 line 6, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections due to claim 4 & 16 limitations directed towards "wherein each IR sensor is of a predetermined size placed at a predefined distance from each other a based on a length of each rack in the data centre." have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 16 line 26 to page 17 line 6):
“Both the sensor dimension and their spacing are determined based on the rack’s geometry and application requirements. …These design choices directly impact the effectiveness of the IR sensing system. Therefore, the claim terms “predetermined” and “predefined” are structural and design constraints, not indefinite or functional ambiguities. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) for Claims 4 and 16.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See “35 USC 112(b) or 35 USC 112(pre-AIA ), Second Paragraph” “Statement of Statutory Basis”:
“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.”
Analysis:
If “predetermined” & “predefined” are structural and design constraints which the applicant is claiming then it is required that there be a full disclosure as to what is meant. Otherwise one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to implement these claim limitations.
Conclusion:
Inclusion of “predetermined” and “predefined” within the claims without disclosure as to what and how these are achieved does not meet the requirement of “particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter”.
Note: the applicant could claim (assuming sufficient support in the originally filed specifications) something to the effect of ‘IR sensors are installed in each rack’. This claim limitation is broad enough to include placement on the rack so as to make the invention functional without requiring disclosure of how “predetermined” and “predefined” are implemented. Inclusion of a predefined variable without including how the variable is defined makes the scope of the claim unclear.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 17 line 7 to page 18 line 2, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections due to claim 8 limitations directed towards "said device comprises: an antenna unit (618), said antenna unit (618) collects an amount of space availability in the rack determined by the system (110) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 17 lines 8-12):
“Regarding claim 8, The Examiner asserts that there is insufficient disclosure as to how an where the antenna collects a signal, and no disclosure as to what type of signal or signaling medium the antenna is sensitive to, rendering the limitation unclear … Applicant submits that cited claim language must be read in light of the specification,”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2111.01(II): "Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim.”
Analysis:
No where in the claims is there disclosure of the system 110 sending a signal which would be received by an antenna. The omission effects the scope of the claimed subject matter since the device 110 as claimed does not include capability of sending a signal to an antenna and a system with an antenna can’t receive a signal if a signal was not sent to the antenna. The system 110 would require (and should be claimed as having) some sort of transmitter to send a signal using conventional wireless protocols, and claim 8 should disclose the antenna receiving data according to those conventional protocols.
Conclusion:
The claimed invention receives a signal but there is no disclosure of the signal having been sent from anywhere. The claim 8 implies necessary but unclaimed features which affect the scope of claims 1-7. Therefore, it is unclear how claim 8 is implemented.
Applicant’s arguments & amendments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 18 lines 3-18, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections due to claim 8 limitations directed towards inconsistent naming of element 618 and a single device including multiple distinct devices/computers have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claim 8 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 19 lines 1-4, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) rejections due to claim 4 limitation "as claimed in claim 4" have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 17 lines 8-12):
“Applicant has amended the claim 4 to address the Office’s concerns.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See “Statement of Statutory Basis, 35 USC 112(d) and pre-AIA 35 USC 112, Fourth paragraph” states “(d) Reference in Dependent Forms. – Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed”
Analysis:
The Claims filed 11/11/2025 in claim 4 recites “as claimed in claim 4”. Therefore, claim 4 attempts to inherit limitations from itself. As such, claim 4 does not “contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed”. Instead, claim 4 references itself and then attempts to further limit itself (a contradiction).
Conclusion:
Claim 4 is not in compliance with 35 USC 112(d).
Note:
If claim 4 were amended to be dependent on claim 3 instead of on claim 4, then the 35 USC 112(d) issue would be overcome.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 19 line 5-page 20 line 2, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections due to claim 1 limitation “the plurality of sensors (420) is configured to transmit an infrared signal (IR) to each rack.” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 19 lines 17-20):
“The IR light source in Guy is not included or a part of the camera. Thus, the camera in Guy misinterpreted as a sensor is not configured to transmit the infrared signal to each of the rack. Therefore, Guy, fails to disclose or suggest at least “the plurality of sensors (420) is configured to transmit an infrared signal (IR) to each rack.” As recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2111:
“Claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification”
Reference entry of
“Handbook of Modern Sensors” - Chapter 3.1 Sensors for Mobile Communication Devices (Fraden) page 36:” These currently built-in sensors are: Imaging camera—takes still photo and video. …”
Reference entry of
“Handbook of Modern Sensors” - Chapter 3.1.2 Integration (Fraden) page 38: Fig. 3.2 ”thermal radiation (IR) sensing module for MCD”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation (and in accordance with the NPL reference of Fraden) the reference of Guy teaches an infrared sensor in the form of a camera (Fig. 16) with infrared capabilities (Guy column 8 lines 22-25: “In some embodiments, an infrared light source near the camera 4 can illuminate the rack 5 allowing the camera 4 (without IR filter) to read barcodes symbols 3, as well as perforated symbols.”). Sensors don’t transmit signals but may work in combination with an element which does. At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the reference of Guy teaches sensors which in combination with an infrared light source teach the limitations directed towards “the plurality of sensors (420) is configured to transmit an infrared signal (IR) to each rack.”.
Conclusion:
The limitation(s) are rejected under the combination of Palmer in view of Guy.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 20 lines 18 to page 21 line 8, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections due to claim 1 limitation "extract a first set of attributes from the first set of signals, the first set of attributes pertaining to information present in the one or more reflected IR signals: determine, based on extracted first set of attributes, a number of computing devices residing in said rack." have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 21 lines 1-4):
“Guy’s system does not analyze reflected IR signals for determining the number of computing device. Instead it decodes pre-encoded barcodes to identify equipment. There is no teaching or suggestion in Guy of inferring count from IR signal reflections, nor is there any signal processing of IR reflections to extract such attributes.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
Analysis:
A camera is a sensor which collects reflected light (in the case of Guy, including infrared light). The reflected light has information from barcodes which the system analyzes to identify equipment. The reference of Guy shows Fig. 9A-15: “Barcode decoder” & Fig. 9A-16:“Equipment location database” which indicate that the system infers a count (as necessarily implied by a database of equipment location) by analyzing/decoding.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the combination of Palmer in view of Guy teaches the limitations directed towards “"extract a first set of attributes from the first set of signals, the first set of attributes pertaining to information present in the one or more reflected IR signals: determine, based on extracted first set of attributes, a number of computing devices residing in said rack.”.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 21 line 9 to page 22 line 28, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections due to claim 1 limitation " receive a first set of signals from the wireless sensor monitoring device, said first set of signals pertaining to one or more reflected infrared signals reflected from each said rack, wherein the one or more reflected signals are obtained after reflection of an IR signal from each said rack" have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 21 lines 9-12):
“Further, Palmer and Guy cannot be combined to arrive at the claimed invention. Specifically, the Examiner’s reasoning that one would combine Palmer’s RFID-based system with Guy’s barcode/IR illumination system to “improve tracking of computing devices in low light conditions” lacks factual basis.”
& (page 21 lines 13-14):
“Palmer’s RFID-based monitoring system does not rely on IR light at all; it functions via radio frequency communication. Hence, there is no motivation for a skilled artisan to incorporate IR illumination”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See “Statement of Statutory Basis, 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.”
Analysis:
If a single reference contained all the subject matter claimed then there would be a 35 USC 102 rejection. A 35 USC 103 rejection is for if the claimed limitations are an obvious combination of prior art. Since Palmer doesn’t teach “IR light at all” it would not be possible to reject the instant application’s limitations under 35 USC 102 with Palmer alone. However, the instant application’s limitations are an obvious combination of the teachings of Palmer in view of Guy and so can be rejected under 35 USC 103 with Palmer in view of Guy. The motivation for a skilled artisan to incorporate IR illumination to create the combination of Palmer in view of Guy is at least (as stated in the non-final rejection filed 08/1/2025): the combination would improve the tracking of computing devices (electronic equipment) in racks including when there are low light conditions (see Guy column 3 lines 51-56: “As will be appreciated, disclosed herein are multiple embodiments of barcode tags providing a sufficiently large symbol with high contrast to allow reliable scanning from a significant distance, and with significantly larger physical dimensions than previously possible, without impeding cooling, operation or transport of equipment assets” & column 8 lines 17-20: “Lights-out environments are common in locations where people are not present. In this environment it is desirable to maintain real-time operation of the camera and barcode scanning system.”
Additionally, an infrared based system overcomes problems that a system such as that in Palmer might have. An infrared system would be able to detect if a device is actually in the correct location rather than just reporting that it is in the correct location. It would also be able to determine the location of a device even when the device isn’t receiving power.
The combination of the two does not require changing the principle of operation of Palmer’s system significantly. The addition of multiple (in exchange for the multiple rfid tags of Palmer) of Guy’s infrared camera and barcodes column 8 lines 22-25: “In some embodiments, an infrared light source near the camera 4 can illuminate the rack 5 allowing the camera 4 (without IR filter) to read barcodes symbols 3, as well as perforated symbols.”, Fig. 8 & Fig. 15 would be an obvious change with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion:
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the instant application to arrive at the combination of Palmer in view of Guy. At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant application’s claims, Palmer in Guy teaches the limitations of the instant application.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 21 line 29 to page 22 line 17, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections due to claim 3 limitation " the plurality of sensors (420) is a plurality of IR sensors placed in a predefined position in each rack, wherein each IR sensor comprises an IR transmitter…" have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 22 lines 11-13):
“The office has cited Guy for disclosing the feature “the plurality of sensors (420) is a plurality of IR sensors placed in a predefined position in each rack.” Applicant respectfully disagrees.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
The reference of Palmer was relied upon for the teaching of “comprising a plurality of sensors” and Guy was relied on for the teaching of infrared sensors (Guy column 8 lines 22-25: “In some embodiments, an infrared light source near the camera 4 can illuminate the rack 5 allowing the camera 4 (without IR filter) to read barcodes symbols 3, as well as perforated symbols.”). The combination is a plurality of infrared sensors.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 22 lines 18-27, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections due to claim 3 limitation "the plurality of sensors (420) is a plurality of IR sensors placed in a predefined position in each rack, wherein each IR sensor comprises an IR transmitter…" have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 22 lines 18-22):
“Guy discloses an infrared light source near a camera used to illuminate barcodes for scanning (see, column 8, lines 22-24). This IR source is not an IR sensor, nor is it placed in a predefined position within each rack. Instead, the IR source is part of a mobile cart system (Fig. 16, column 10, lines 53-56), which is manually directed at racks by an operator.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
The Examiner does not consider an IR light source to be a sensor, rather the camera is a sensor and that it works in conjunction with an IR light source means that the camera is an IR sensor. Guy does not teach that the camera is placed in a “predefined” position within each rack, but Palmer teaches multiple rfid sensors and that each rfid sensor is placed within a rack. The combination of Palmer in view of Guy teaches IR sensors (the cameras) in positions within each rack. Additionally “predefined” is apparently intended to imply a limitation, but there is no disclosure as to what this means (112(b) issue). One of ordinary skill in the art upon reading the limitation would have to ask questions such as “how is this position predefined”, “when was this predefining done?”, “If an instance of the invention is being recreated by one of ordinary skill in the art, but If the position isn’t ‘predefined’, then is the resulting instance within the scope of the claimed invention?”. However, if all that is meant by “predefined” is that an IR sensor is on the rack then “predefined” is met by any prior art that has a sensor on the rack (such as Palmer).
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 22 lines 28 to page 23 line 10, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections due to claim 3 limitation "the plurality of sensors (420) is a plurality of IR sensors placed in a predefined position in each rack, wherein each IR sensor comprises an IR transmitter…" have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 23 lines 5-8):
“In other words, the cited portions of Palmer refer to RFID communication, which operates via radio frequency, not infrared. Palmer does not disclose or suggest infrared transmitters and receivers configured to emit and detect reflected IR signals. The RFID reader/tag architecture operates on an entirely different principle and signal medium. ”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
Palmer teaches multiple sensors on racks, Guy teaches infrared sensors. The combination of Palmer in view of Guy teaches multiple infrared sensors on racks as per 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 23 lines 11 to page 23 line 22, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections due to claim 4 limitation "each IR sensor is of a predetermined size placed at a predefined distance from each other based on a length of each rack in the data centre." have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 23 lines 11-12):
“Further, claim 4 in part recites “each IR sensor is of a predetermined size placed at a predefined distance from each other based on a length of each rack in the data centre.”
& (page 23 lines 18-20):
“However, the “U-level position” in Guy is a rack positioning system, not a physical arrangement of sensors. Guy nowhere teaches or suggests that infrared sensors of specific size are placed at intervals according to rack length.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
It is not clear what the Applicant intends by “predetermined size” & “predetermined distance”. However, at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the reference of Guy must have a predetermined size and a predefined distance at least because a rack positioning system would require infrared sensors of specific sizes and distances. Without specific definitions or explanations as to what ‘predetermined size’ & ‘predefined distance’ mean these teams must be interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation.
Note:
“35 USC 112(b) or 35 USC 112(pre-AIA ), second Paragraph .. Statement of Statutory Basis” states “(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.”
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 23 lines 23 to page 24 line 20, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections due to claim 8 limitation "an antenna unit (610), said antenna unit (610) collects an amount of space availability in the rack determined by a system (110); a local area network (LAN) interface (618), said LAN interface (618) configured to communicate with a centralized server (112) through a network (106)." have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 24 lines 5-6):
“The “antenna” in Palmer is a part of a wireless communication interface (e.g., Wi-Fi or NFC), not a sensor or receiver configured to collect space measurement data. Palmer does not describe any process of measuring or receiving data about rack space or equipment placement.”
& (page 24 lines 15-18):
“Further, the Data Center Management Controller (DCMC) in Palmer at most includes a processor and memory, however, it is not equivalent to a wireless gateway with antenna which collects and transmits rack space availability data. Further, Palmer nowhere discloses receiving and transmitting space availability data as recited in claim 8.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
Claim 8 does not claim a “sensor or receiver configured to collect space measurement data”. Claim 8 claims “an antenna unit (610), said antenna unit (610) collects an amount of space availability in the rack determined by a system (110)”. At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation Palmer teaches these limitations; limitations such as “wireless communication” necessarily require some sort of antenna. The reference of Guy was relied upon to teach the claim 8 limitation of “receive the amount of space availability in the rack…” (Guy column 12 lines 8-9: “the reference barcodes can encode the total number of equipment spaces or slots in the containing device or rack”).
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 24 lines 21 to page 25 line 10, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections due to claim 8 limitation "a processor (222), said processor coupled with a memory (224), wherein said memory stores instructions which when executed by the processor causes the processor (222) to: receive the amount of space availability in the rack determined by the system (110); transmit the received the amount of space availability to the rack to the centralized server (112)." have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 24 lines 27 to page 25 line 2):
“Guy at most discloses barcode tags that can encode a number of equipment slots (column 12, lines 8-9), and that the system in Guy can track equipment presence (column 13, lines 4-7), however, Guy does not disclose a wireless gateway device including a processor and a for memory storing instructions to receive rack space availability data.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
The reference of Palmer was relied upon for teaching wireless communication (which necessarily implies at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation ‘wireless gateway’). Guy was relied upon for teaching rack space availability data. The combination of Palmer in view of Guy teaches a system which uses wireless communication to track rack space availability data.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 25 lines 11 to page 25 line 25, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections due to claim 8 (and thereby dependent claims 9-12) limitation "a processor (222), said processor coupled with a memory (224), wherein said memory stores instructions which when executed by the processor causes the processor (222) to: receive the amount of space availability in the rack determined by the system (110); transmit the received the amount of space availability to the rack to the centralized server (112)." have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 25 lines 11 to page 25 line 14):
“Additionally, Palmer and Guy cannot be properly combined to arrive at the features of claim 8. If Palmer and Guy are combined then such a combination would be technically inconsistent and operationally incompatible. The RFID system in Palmer uses radio frequency electromagnetic coupling, whereas the system in Guy uses infrared illumination and optical imaging.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
Both the combination of Palmer in view of Guy and the instant application use an infrared sensor to get information regarding rack space availability and then use wireless communication to transmit the information to a server. A 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection uses subject matter from more than one reference and combines them in an obvious manner (to one of ordinary skill in the art) to teach the limitations of the instant application.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 25 lines 26 to page 26 line 18, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections due to claim 13 limitation "said first set of signals pertaining to one or more reflected infrared signals reflected from each said rack, wherein the one or more reflected signals are obtained after reflection of an IR signal form each said rack, said IR signal transmitted by the plurality of sensors." have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 25 lines 11 to page 25 line 14):
“Guy, at column 8 lines 22-25 discloses that an infrared light source near the camera illuminate the rack which allows the camera to read barcode symbols, … . However, Guy does not disclose that the camera receives any reflected infrared signals. ”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
Guy discloses that there is camera which receives barcode information from the rack, Guy also discloses that the rack is illuminated by an infrared source (see Guy column 8 lines 22-25: “In some embodiments, an infrared light source near the camera 4 can illuminate the rack 5 allowing the camera 4 (without IR filter) to read barcodes symbols 3, as well as perforated symbols.”, & Fig. 16). Fig. 16 clearly shows that the camera is positioned to receive reflected signals from the rack. Therefore, the camera must be an infrared sensor.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 26 lines 19 to page 27 line 10, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections due to claim 13 limitation "extracting, by the processor, a first set of attributes pertaining of information present in the one or more reflected IR signals; determining, by the processor, based on first set of attributes, a number of computing devices residing in said rack." have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 26 lines 26 to page 27 line 2):
“The decoder in Guy does not receive, decode or analyze the reflected IR signals to extract the attributes or information from the reflected IR signal…Guy does not disclose that reflected IR signal is used to determine a number of computing devices residing in said rack.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
Guy Fig. 16 shows an infrared sensor (in the form of a camera 27) receiving reflected IR signals from a rack 28. Guy Fig. 9A shows that the signals are decoded or analyzed to extract attributes. The number of computing devices residing in each rack is communicated to the camera by IR light reflected off of the tags on computing devices in the rack (see Fig. 16 -26 “Tags”).
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 27 lines 11 to page 28 line 9, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections due to claim 13 limitation "extracting, by the processor, a first set of attributes pertaining of information present in the one or more reflected IR signals; determining, by the processor, based on first set of attributes, a number of computing devices residing in said rack." have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 27 lines 11 to page 27 line 2):
“Further, Palmer and Guy cannot be properly combined to arrive at the claimed invention. Specifically, the Examiner’s reasoning that one would combine Palmer’s RFID-based system with Guy’s barcode/IR illumination system to “improve tracking of computing devices in low light conditions” lacks factual basis. Palmer’s RFID-based monitoring system does not rely on IR light at all; it functions via radio frequency communication. Hence, there is no motivation for a skilled artisan to incorporate IR illumination, which is relevant only to optical imaging systems, not RFID systems.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
Under 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections limitations of an instant application are met by more than one reference and are combined with a motivation for combining the references which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application. The reference of Palmer doesn’t rely on RFID light, but the reference of Guy does. The reference of Palmer is relied upon for teachings regarding wireless communication and server management. The combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application. The reference of Palmer teaches server management and wireless communication while palmer teaches infrared sensors. The motivation to combine would have been that the combination would improve the tracking and management of computing devices in racks including when there are low light conditions.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 28 lines 10 to page 29 line 13, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections due to claim 15 limitation "the plurality of sensors (420) is a plurality of IR sensors placed in a predefined position in each rack, wherein each IR sensor comprises an IR transmitter (418) and an IR receiver (416), wherein the IR transmitter (418) is configured to transmit an IR signal to a rack and the IR receiver (416) is configured to receive a reflected IR signal from the rack." have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 28 lines 18 to page 28 line 26):
“In contrast, Guy discloses an infrared light source near a camera used to illuminate barcodes for scanning (see, column 8, lines 22-24). This IR source is not a IR sensor, nor is it placed in a predefined position within each rack. Instead, the IR source is part of a mobile cart system (Fig. 16, column 10, lines 53-56), which is manually directed at racks by an operator.”
& (page 29 lines 4-7):
“In contrast, Palmer discloses RFID tag readers (e.g., elements 312 and 322) that activate RFID tags via magnetic fields and receive radio signals (column 7, lines 4-10) instead of reflected optical or infrared signals. The RFID tag readers in Palmer are not IR transmitters or receivers, and Palmer does not disclose any use of infrared signals for rack measurement.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
Individually, neither Palmer nor Guy teach all of the limitations of the instant application, and therefore the claims are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102. However, the obvious combination of Palmer in view of Guy does teach all of the limitations of the instant application, and therefore the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103. That Guy specifies that the camera works in cooperation with an IR light source necessarily means that the camera is an IR sensor. Palmer discloses multiple RFID tag readers at predefined positions on each rack (see Palmer Fig. 2). Palmer does not need to disclose infrared signals because Guy discloses infrared signals.
If something particular is meant by “predefined positions” this limitation would need to be fully disclosed and claimed; this limitation is interpreted as meaning no more than that the elements are on the rack.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 29 lines 14 to page 29 line 25, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections due to claim 16 limitation "each IR sensor is of a predetermined size placed at a predefined distance from each other based on a length of each rack in the data centre." have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 29 lines 17 to page 29 line 21):
“Guy at most discloses detecting the U-level position of equipment within a rack for determining operational metrics such as rack management and planning… Guy nowhere teaches or suggests that infrared sensors of a specific size are place at defined intervals according to rack length.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
Guy was not relied upon for limitations regarding positioning of equipment within a rack; Palmer was relied upon for teaching positioning of elements on a rack (see Palmer Fig. 2).
If something particular is intended by “specific size” & “defined intervals” then these limitations would need to be fully disclosed and claimed; these limitations are interpreted as meaning elements exist and are on the rack.
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim”:
Claim 1 in lines 7-8 & Claim 13 in lines 11-12 recites the limitation "wherein the plurality of sensors (420) is configured to transmit an infrared signal (IR) to each rack".
[Issue]
There is functionality asserted to be performed by elements which are not understood to one of ordinary skill in the art as performing that functionality.
[Rule]
In this context:
“Sensors” are defined as (see ‘The Penguin English Dictionary (3rd ed.)’ for ‘signal’ definition 5) “a device that responds to heat, light, sound, pressure, magnetism, etc and transmits a resulting impulse, e.g. for measurement or operating a control”
“Signals” are defined as (see ‘The Penguin English Dictionary (3rd ed.)’ for ‘signal’ definition 5) “the variations of a physical quantity, e.g. pressure, current, or voltage, by which information may be transmitted in an electronic circuit or system”
[Analysis]
The claim has sensors sending signals (without data) to devices which don’t receive data (i.e., racks) and then the sensor receiving data. However, sensors don’t send signals to the object they’re sensing, instead they receive signals from the object they’re sensing and convert the received signal into an electrical form to be sent to some processing system.
Claim 1 lines 7-8, The term “the plurality of sensors (420) is configured to transmit an infrared signal (IR) to each rack” is used by the claim to mean (as per para 0017) “each IR sensor may include an IR transmitter and an IR receiver. In an embodiment, the IR transmitter may be configured to transmit an IR signal to a rack and the IR receiver may be configured to receive a reflected IR signal from the rack.”
[Conclusion]
Therefore, there are IR transmitters that emit light, that light is reflected off of a rack thereby creating a signal, and the sensor receives the signal.
For the purposes of examination the limitation of “the plurality of sensors (420) is configured to transmit an infrared signal (IR) to each rack” is interpreted as ‘The sensor has an associated IR transmitter which may be configured to transmit IR light to a rack,’ & ‘a signal is sent to the sensor (which includes an IR receiver) from the rack in the ‘physical quantity’/medium of IR light’.
Claim 3 in lines 2-5 Claim 15 in lines 2-5 recites the limitation "wherein each IR sensor comprises an IR transmitter (418) and an IR receiver (416), wherein the IR transmitter (418) is configured to transmit an IR signal to a rack and the IR receiver (416) is configured to receive a reflected IR signal from the rack.". It is unclear how and why an IR transmitter would transmit a signal to a rack (for which no processing or receiver is disclosed) and then reflect a signal back.
For the purposes of examination this limitation is interpreted as ‘system has a IR transmitter which directs IR light (which doesn’t have a signal encoded) towards a rack and IR light is reflected back with a signal encoded in IR light to an IR receiver’. Such a limitation could be met by a camera which is sensitive to IR light and a tag or ID on the rack which would reflect IR light.
Claim 3 in lines 1-2 and Claim 15 in lines 1-2 recites the limitation "wherein the plurality of sensors (420) is a plurality of IR sensors placed in a predefined position in each rack". It is unclear how or what determinations or what defining have been done and how that might be relevant to establishing the scope of the claim(s). One of ordinary skill in the art would not know what this limitation implies about implementing an instance of the invention.
Claim 4 in 1-3 and Claim 16 in 1-3 recites the limitation "each IR sensor is of a predetermined size placed at a predefined distance from each other in based on a length of each rack in the data centre.". It is unclear how or what determinations or what defining have been done and how that might be relevant to establishing the scope of the claim(s). One of ordinary skill in the art would not know what this limitation implies about implementing an instance of the invention.
Claim 8 in lines 2-4 recites the limitation "said device comprises: an antenna unit (618), said antenna unit (618) collects an amount of space availability in the rack determined by the system (110)". There is insufficient disclosure as to how and where the antenna unit collects a signal. There is no disclosure as to how a signal would be generated and so it is unclear as to what type of signal and signaling medium the antenna is sensitive to.
Claims 2-3 and 5-7, 9-12, & 14-20 are rejected for inheriting the limitation(s) of a base claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the base claim was rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 in line 1 recites the limitation "The system (110) for facilitating rack space measurement as claimed in claim 4". The dependency is circular; a claim cannot inherit its own limitations and then further limit them.
Note: For the purposes of examination claim 4 is interpreted as “The system (110) for facilitating rack space measurement as claimed in claim 3,…” (because claim 3 has “IR sensor” and neither claim 1 nor claim 2 has “IR sensor”)
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Note: see MPEP 1893.01(a)(4): “All "currently amended" claims must include markings to indicate the changes made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims: underlining to indicate additions, strike-through or double brackets for deletions (see 37 CFR 1.121(c)”
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9958178 B2 (Palmer) in view of US 11314997 B1 (Guy).
Regarding claim 1, Palmer teaches a system (110) for facilitating rack space measurement of a data centre (108) (Fig. 1 – 150 “Data Center Management Controller” ) of an entity (114) (Fig. 3 – 205 “Client Name”, entity/(“client”)), said system comprises: a wireless sensor monitoring device, said wireless sensor monitoring device (116) comprising a plurality of sensors (420) (Fig. 3 – 312 and 322 “RFID Reader”), said plurality of sensors (420) operatively coupled to a plurality of racks of the data centre (108) (Fig. 3 -314 and 324 “Server Rack Information”), said plurality of racks having a plurality of computing devices residing in each rack (Fig. 1 – 100 “information handling system”, column 4 lines 2-6: “One or more of the elements of data center 100 can be realized as an information handling system. For purpose of this disclosure an information handling system can include any instrumentality or aggregate of instrumentalities operable to compute”, computing devices/(“information handling system”)),
Palmer does not teach and wherein the plurality of sensors (420) is configured to transmit an infrared signal (IR) to each rack; a processor (202), said processor operatively coupled to the wireless sensor monitoring device through a network (106) , said processor (202) coupled with a memory (204), wherein said memory (204) stores instructions which when executed by the processor (202) causes the processor (202) to: receive a first set of signals from the wireless sensor monitoring device, said first set of signals pertaining to one or more reflected infrared signals reflected from each said rack, said IR signal transmitted by the plurality of sensors; extract a first set of attributes from the first set of signals, the first set of attributes pertaining to information present in the one or more reflected IR signals; determine, based on extracted first set of attributes, a number of computing devices residing in said rack; correlate the number of computing devices with a maximum capacity of computing devices in the rack; and, determine based on the correlated number of computing devices, an amount of space available in said rack
Guy teaches and wherein the plurality of sensors (420) is configured to transmit an infrared signal (IR) (Fig. 9A – 4 camera, column 8 lines 22-25: “an infrared light source near the camera 4 can illuminate the rack 5 allowing the camera 4 (without IR filter) to read barcodes symbols 3, as well as perforated symbols.”) to each rack (Fig. 16 – 28 “rack”, column 10 lines 53-56: “The cart 29 can contain a camera 27 that is directed by the operator at an area such as a rack 28 with tags 26 in view. A computer 25 can read one or more images from the camera and decode the barcodes.”); a processor (202), said processor operatively coupled to the wireless sensor monitoring device through a network (106) (column 5 lines 53-60:” The image pre-processing 41, the barcode decoder 15, and the focal control 12 functions can be viewed as implemented within a controller (e.g., a computer 25 also described herein), which controller can include a processor and memory. In some embodiments, the controller can include a network interface, such as a wireless or wired interface, to communicate with a database server and/or other resources external to the computer.”, through a network/(“wireless … interface”)) , said processor (202) coupled with a memory (204), wherein said memory (204) stores instructions which when executed by the processor (202) causes the processor (202) to: receive a first set of signals from the wireless sensor monitoring device (Fig. 7 – 4 “Camera”, Fig. 9A - 4 “Camera” & 41 “Image Pre-processing”), said first set of signals pertaining to one or more reflected infrared signals reflected from each said rack (column 8 lines 22-25: “In some embodiments, an infrared light source near the camera 4 can illuminate the rack 5 allowing the camera 4 (without IR filter) to read barcodes symbols 3, as well as perforated symbols.”), wherein the one or more reflected signals are obtained after reflection of an IR signal from each said rack (Fig 16 – 26 “tags”, & 27 “camera”, column 10 lines 53-55: “The cart 29 can contain a camera 27 that is directed by the operator at an area such as a rack 28 with tags 26 in view.”), said IR signal transmitted by the plurality of sensors (column 8 lines 28-30: “In this situation, cameras 4 having programmatically controlled focal distance can be employed to enable successful barcode scanning.”); extract a first set of attributes from the first set of signals, the first set of attributes pertaining to information present in the one or more reflected IR signals (Fig. 9A – 15 “barcode decoder”, extract a first set of attributes/(“decoder”)); determine, based on extracted first set of attributes, a number of computing devices residing in said rack (column 13 lines 4-7: “As can be appreciated by a skilled artisan, disclosed embodiments of a system can reliably and at low cost, track equipment presence, location within a rack, and rack identification”); correlate the number of computing devices with a maximum capacity of computing devices in the rack (column 12 lines 8-9: “the reference barcodes can encode the total number of equipment spaces or slots in the containing device or rack.”); and, determine based on the correlated number of computing devices, an amount of space available in said rack (column 13 lines 4-7: “track equipment presence, location within a rack”, this includes how much space is available in a rack).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Palmer with the teachings of Guy. One would have added to the “System And Method For Providing A Server Rack Management Controller” of Palmer the “Barcode Tag, And Method And System Employing Same, For Tracking Electronic Equipment” with reflected infrared signals of Guy. The motivation would have been that the combination would improve the tracking of computing devices (electronic equipment) in racks including when there are low light conditions (see Guy column 3 lines 51-56: “As will be appreciated, disclosed herein are multiple embodiments of barcode tags providing a sufficiently large symbol with high contrast to allow reliable scanning from a significant distance, and with significantly larger physical dimensions than previously possible, without impeding cooling, operation or transport of equipment assets” & column 8 lines 17-20: “Lights-out environments are common in locations where people are not present. In this environment it is desirable to maintain real-time operation of the camera and barcode scanning system.”).
Regarding claim 2, Palmer in view of Guy teaches the system (110) for facilitating rack space measurement as claimed in claim 1,
Guy further teaches wherein the processor (202) collates the first set of attributes for the plurality of racks to determine a total space availability in the data centre (column 12 lines 8-9: “the reference barcodes can encode the total number of equipment spaces or slots in the containing device or rack.”, & column 13 lines 4-7: “track equipment presence, location within a rack”, this includes how much space is available in a rack), therefore system determines total space availability).
Regarding claim 3, Palmer in view of Guy teaches the system (110) for facilitating rack space measurement as claimed in claim 1,
Guy further teaches wherein the plurality of sensors (420) is a plurality of IR sensors placed in a predefined position in each rack (column 8 lines 22-24: “In some embodiments, an infrared light source near the camera 4 can illuminate the rack 5 allowing the camera 4 (without IR filter) to read barcodes symbols 3”),
Palmer further teaches wherein each IR sensor comprises an IR transmitter (418) and an IR receiver (416), wherein the IR transmitter (418) is configured to transmit an IR signal to a rack and the IR receiver (416) is configured to receive a reflected IR signal from the rack (Fig. 3 – 203 “tag” and 312 “reader” column 7 lines 4-10: “A Server rack 310 includes an RFID tag reader 312, and server rack 320 includes an RFID tag reader 322. RFID tag 203 is activated by a magnetic field created by RFID tag reader 312, and provides the stored information via radio waves that are received by the RFID tag reader”, Palmer teaches readers and transmitters for each rack).
Regarding claim 4, Palmer in view of Guy teaches the system (110) for facilitating rack space measurement as claimed in claim 4,
Guy further teaches wherein each IR sensor is of a predetermined size placed at a predefined distance from each other in based on a length of each rack in the data centre (column 2 lines 56-62: “It is advantageous to be able to detect not only which equipment assets are in each rack, but also where each item is located within the rack. This is often referred to as the U-level position. A system that accurately reports U-level position allows rack capacity planning, analytical profiling of thermal behavior, weight distribution calculations and other operational metrics.”, system is predefined/designed to have sensors and tags integrated into the system in order to track assets in the data center).
Regarding claim 5, Palmer in view of Guy teaches the system (110) for facilitating rack space measurement as claimed in claim 1,
Guy further teaches wherein the wireless sensor monitoring device further comprises a plurality of microcontroller units (MCU) (412) (Fig. 9A – 12 “Focal control” ) and a plurality of buffer units (408) (Fig. 9A – 15 “Barcode decoder”) operatively coupled to each IR sensor (Fig. 9A – 4 “Camera”, column 8 lines 22-25: “an infrared light source near the camera 4 can illuminate the rack 5 allowing the camera 4 (without IR filter) to read barcodes symbols 3, as well as perforated symbols.”).
Regarding claim 6, Palmer in view of Guy teaches the system (110) for facilitating rack space measurement as claimed in claim 1,
Guy further teaches wherein a centralized server (112) operatively coupled to the system (110) stores the first set of signals, the first set of attributes, a second set of attributes, total space availability in the data centre and total number of computing devices in each rack in the data centre (Fig. 9 – 910 “Rack Management Controller”, column 11 lines 62-67: “RMC 910 also operates as a management access point for passive and active floor tiles upon which server rack 900 is located. In another embodiment, RMC 900 operates to aggregate the management functions of other similar server racks, providing a centralized access point between the other server racks and the data center management system.”, has a system with a centralized server for storing data about spaces in the data center ).
Regarding claim 7, Palmer in view of Guy teaches the system (110) for facilitating rack space measurement as claimed in claim 6,
Palmer further teaches wherein a user device (104) is communicably coupled to the centralized server (112) through the network (106), wherein the user device (104) enables a user to store, access and monitor the centralized server (112) remotely through the network (106) (Fig. 1 – 150 “Data Center Management Controller”, column 4 lines 57-58: “DCMC 150 operates to provide a management network for the equipment in server racks” & column 4 line 65- column 5 line 3: “a DCMC includes a dedicated hardware device, a software stack on a dedicated server, a software stack on a server of data center 100, or other hardware, software, or firmware located in the data center or remote from the data center, as needed or desired.”).
Regarding claim 8, Palmer teaches a wireless gateway device (120) for collecting rack space measurement data of a data centre (108) of an entity (114) (Fig. 3 – 205 “Client Name”, entity/(“client”)), said device comprises: an antenna unit (610), said antenna unit (610) collects an amount of space availability in the rack determined by a system (110) (Fig. 6 – 620 “Data Center Management Controller”, column 9 lines 44-49: “Floor 600 is similar to floor 500, except that active floor tiles 602-618 each include a wireless communication port, such as an NFC port, an IEEE 803.11 (WiFi) port, a Bluetooth port, or another wireless communication port, and each of the active floor tiles includes a unique identification.”, Wifi communication requires an antenna); a local area network (LAN) interface (618), said LAN interface (618) configured to communicate with a centralized server (112) through a network (106) (Fig. 35 – 3514 “Map Host ports to Switch/Determine vLAN associations for server”, Fig. 14 – 1440 “vLAN setup module”, column 5 lines 28-32: “In another embodiment the RMCs operate to provide virtual local area network (vLAN) mapping for the equipment in the server rack. In a first case, the vLAN mapping is provided based upon the location of a management connection between the RMC and the equipment”, LAN/(“vLAN”)); a processor (222), said processor coupled with a memory (224) (Fig. 1 – 150 “Data Center Management Controller (DCMC)”, DCMC necessarily has processor and memory),
Palmer does not as explicitly teach wherein said memory stores instructions which when executed by the processor causes the processor (222) to: receive the amount of space availability in the rack determined by the system (110); transmit the received the amount of space availability in the rack to the centralized server (112)
Guy teaches wherein said memory stores instructions which when executed by the processor causes the processor (222) to: receive the amount of space availability in the rack determined by the system (110) (column 12 lines 8-9: “the reference barcodes can encode the total number of equipment spaces or slots in the containing device or rack.”, & column 13 lines 4-7: “track equipment presence, location within a rack”, this includes how much space is available in a rack), therefore system determines total space availability); transmit the received the amount of space availability in the rack to the centralized server (112) (Fig. 9 – 910 “Rack Management Controller”, column 11 lines 62-67: “RMC 910 also operates as a management access point for passive and active floor tiles upon which server rack 900 is located. In another embodiment, RMC 900 operates to aggregate the management functions of other similar server racks, providing a centralized access point between the other server racks and the data center management system.”, has a system with a centralized server for storing data about spaces in the data center ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Palmer with the teachings of Guy. One would have added to the “System And Method For Providing A Server Rack Management Controller” of Palmer the “Barcode Tag, And Method And System Employing Same, For Tracking Electronic Equipment” with reflected infrared signals of Guy. The motivation would have been that the combination would improve the tracking of computing devices (electronic equipment) in racks including when there are low light conditions (see Guy column 3 lines 51-56: “As will be appreciated, disclosed herein are multiple embodiments of barcode tags providing a sufficiently large symbol with high contrast to allow reliable scanning from a significant distance, and with significantly larger physical dimensions than previously possible, without impeding cooling, operation or transport of equipment assets” & column 8 lines 17-20: “Lights-out environments are common in locations where people are not present. In this environment it is desirable to maintain real-time operation of the camera and barcode scanning system.”).
Regarding claim 9, Palmer in view of Guy teaches the wireless gateway device (120) for collecting rack space measurement data as claimed in claim 8,
Guy further teaches wherein the wireless gateway device (120) is of a predetermined size that do not require any rack space (Fig. 16 – 25 “computer” , column 5 lines 54-60: “the barcode decoder 15, and the focal control 12 functions can be viewed as implemented within a controller (e.g., a computer 25 also described herein), which controller can include a processor and memory. In some embodiments, the controller can include a network interface, such as a wireless or wired interface, to communicate with a database server and/or other resources external to the computer.”).
Regarding claim 10, Palmer in view of Guy teaches the wireless gateway device (120) for collecting rack space measurement data as claimed in claim 8,
Guy further teaches wherein the centralized server (112) stores the first set of signals, the first set of attributes, a second set of attributes, total space availability in the data centre and total number of computing devices in each rack in the data centre (Fig. 9 – 910 “Rack Management Controller”, column 11 lines 62-67: “RMC 910 also operates as a management access point for passive and active floor tiles upon which server rack 900 is located. In another embodiment, RMC 900 operates to aggregate the management functions of other similar server racks, providing a centralized access point between the other server racks and the data center management system.”, has a system with a centralized server for storing data about spaces in the data center ).
Regarding claim 11, Palmer in view of Guy teaches the wireless gateway device (120) for collecting rack space measurement data as claimed in claim 10,
Palmer further teaches wherein a user device (104) is communicably coupled to the centralized server (112) through the network (106), wherein the user device (104) enables a user (102) to store, access and monitor the centralized server (112) remotely through the network (106) (Fig. 1 – 150 “Data Center Management Controller”, column 4 lines 57-58: “DCMC 150 operates to provide a management network for the equipment in server racks” & column 4 line 65- column 5 line 3: “a DCMC includes a dedicated hardware device, a software stack on a dedicated server, a software stack on a server of data center 100, or other hardware, software, or firmware located in the data center or remote from the data center, as needed or desired.”).
Regarding claim 12, Palmer in view of Guy teaches the wireless gateway device (120) for collecting rack space measurement data as claimed in claim 8,
Palmer further teaches wherein the device is further configured to manage a plurality of systems (110) (Fig. 3 – 312 and 322 “RFID Reader”, there are multiple readers because they are for managing multiple systems. ).
Regarding claim 13, Palmer teaches a method for facilitating rack space measurement of a data centre (108) (Fig. 1 – 150 “Data Center Management Controller” ) of an entity (114) (Fig. 3 – 205 “Client Name”, entity/(“client”)), said method comprises: receiving, by a processor (202), a first set of signals from a wireless sensor monitoring device (Fig. 3 – 312 and 322 “RFID Reader”, the RFID readers comprise the monitoring device), …, wherein said wireless sensor monitoring device (116) comprising a plurality of sensors (420) (Fig. 3 – 312 and 322 “RFID Reader”), said plurality of sensors (420) operatively coupled to a plurality of racks of the data centre (108) (Fig. 3 -314 and 324 “Server Rack Information”), said plurality of racks having a plurality of computing devices residing in each rack (Fig. 1 – 100 “information handling system”, column 4 lines 2-6: “One or more of the elements of data center 100 can be realized as an information handling system. For purpose of this disclosure an information handling system can include any instrumentality or aggregate of instrumentalities operable to compute”, computing devices/(“information handling system”)),
Palmer does not teach … said first set of signals pertaining to one or more reflected infrared signals reflected from each said rack, wherein the one or more reflected signals are obtained after reflection of an IR signal from each said rack, said IR signal transmitted by the plurality of sensors, … and wherein the plurality of sensors (420) is configured to transmit an infrared signal (IR), to each rack, wherein said wireless sensor monitoring device (116) is operatively coupled to the processor (202), said processor (202) coupled with a memory (204), wherein said memory (204) stores instructions that are executed by the processor (202); extracting, by the processor, a first set of attributes from the first set of signals, the first set of attributes pertaining to information present in the one or more reflected IR signals; determining, by the processor, based on extracted first set of attributes, a number of computing devices residing in said rack; correlating, by the processor, the number of computing devices with a maximum capacity of number of computing devices in the rack; and, determining, by the processor, based on the correlated number of computing devices, an amount of space available in said rack
Guy teaches … said first set of signals pertaining to one or more reflected infrared signals (Fig. 9A – 4 camera, column 8 lines 22-25: “an infrared light source near the camera 4 can illuminate the rack 5 allowing the camera 4 (without IR filter) to read barcodes symbols 3, as well as perforated symbols.”) reflected from each said rack (Fig 16 – 26 “tags”, & 27 “camera”, column 10 lines 53-55: “The cart 29 can contain a camera 27 that is directed by the operator at an area such as a rack 28 with tags 26 in view.”), wherein the one or more reflected signals are obtained after reflection of an IR signal from each said rack (Fig 16 – 26 “tags”, & 27 “camera”, column 10 lines 53-55: “The cart 29 can contain a camera 27 that is directed by the operator at an area such as a rack 28 with tags 26 in view.”), said IR signal transmitted by the plurality of sensors (column 8 lines 28-30: “In this situation, cameras 4 having programmatically controlled focal distance can be employed to enable successful barcode scanning.”), … and wherein the plurality of sensors (420) is configured to transmit an infrared signal (IR) (Fig. 9A – 4 camera, column 8 lines 22-25: “an infrared light source near the camera 4 can illuminate the rack 5 allowing the camera 4 (without IR filter) to read barcodes symbols 3, as well as perforated symbols.”) to each rack (Fig. 16 – 28 “rack”, column 10 lines 53-56: “The cart 29 can contain a camera 27 that is directed by the operator at an area such as a rack 28 with tags 26 in view. A computer 25 can read one or more images from the camera and decode the barcodes.”), wherein said wireless sensor monitoring device (116) is operatively coupled to the processor (202), said processor (202) coupled with a memory (204), wherein said memory (204) stores instructions that are executed by the processor (202) (Fig. 7 – 4 “Camera”, Fig. 9A - 4 “Camera” & 41 “Image Pre-processing”); extracting, by the processor, a first set of attributes from the first set of signals, the first set of attributes pertaining to information present in the one or more reflected IR signals (Fig. 9A – 15 “barcode decoder”, extract a first set of attributes/(“decoder”)); determining, by the processor, based on extracted first set of attributes, a number of computing devices residing in said rack (column 13 lines 4-7: “As can be appreciated by a skilled artisan, disclosed embodiments of a system can reliably and at low cost, track equipment presence, location within a rack, and rack identification”); correlating, by the processor, the number of computing devices with a maximum capacity of number of computing devices in the rack (column 12 lines 8-9: “the reference barcodes can encode the total number of equipment spaces or slots in the containing device or rack.”); and, determining, by the processor, based on the correlated number of computing devices, an amount of space available in said rack (column 13 lines 4-7: “track equipment presence, location within a rack”, this includes how much space is available in a rack).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Palmer with the teachings of Guy. One would have added to the “System And Method For Providing A Server Rack Management Controller” of Palmer the “Barcode Tag, And Method And System Employing Same, For Tracking Electronic Equipment” with reflected infrared signals of Guy. The motivation would have been that the combination would improve the tracking of computing devices (electronic equipment) in racks including when there are low light conditions (see Guy column 3 lines 51-56: “As will be appreciated, disclosed herein are multiple embodiments of barcode tags providing a sufficiently large symbol with high contrast to allow reliable scanning from a significant distance, and with significantly larger physical dimensions than previously possible, without impeding cooling, operation or transport of equipment assets” & column 8 lines 17-20: “Lights-out environments are common in locations where people are not present. In this environment it is desirable to maintain real-time operation of the camera and barcode scanning system.”).
Regarding claim 14, Palmer in view of Guy teaches the method for facilitating rack space measurement of a data centre as claimed in claim 13,
Guy further teaches wherein the method further comprises: collating, by the processor, the first set of attributes for the plurality of racks to determine a total space availability in the data centre (column 12 lines 8-9: “the reference barcodes can encode the total number of equipment spaces or slots in the containing device or rack.”, & column 13 lines 4-7: “track equipment presence, location within a rack”, this includes how much space is available in a rack), therefore system determines total space availability).
Regarding claim 15, Palmer in view of Guy teaches the method for facilitating rack space measurement of a data centre as claimed in claim 13,
Guy further teaches wherein the plurality of sensors (420) is a plurality of IR sensors placed in a predefined position in each rack (column 8 lines 22-24: “In some embodiments, an infrared light source near the camera 4 can illuminate the rack 5 allowing the camera 4 (without IR filter) to read barcodes symbols 3”),
Palmer further teaches wherein each IR sensor comprises an IR transmitter (418) and an IR receiver (416), wherein the IR transmitter (418) is configured to transmit an IR signal to a rack and the IR receiver (416) is configured to receive a reflected IR signal from the rack (Fig. 3 – 203 “tag” and 312 “reader” column 7 lines 4-10: “A Server rack 310 includes an RFID tag reader 312, and server rack 320 includes an RFID tag reader 322. RFID tag 203 is activated by a magnetic field created by RFID tag reader 312, and provides the stored information via radio waves that are received by the RFID tag reader”, Palmer teaches readers and transmitters for each rack).
Regarding claim 16, Palmer in view of Guy teaches the method for facilitating rack space measurement of a data centre as claimed in claim 15,
Guy further teaches wherein each IR sensor (420) is of a predetermined size placed at a predefined distance from each other based on a length of each rack in the data centre (column 2 lines 56-62: “It is advantageous to be able to detect not only which equipment assets are in each rack, but also where each item is located within the rack. This is often referred to as the U-level position. A system that accurately reports U-level position allows rack capacity planning, analytical profiling of thermal behavior, weight distribution calculations and other operational metrics.”, system is predefined/designed to have sensors and tags integrated into the system in order to track assets in the data center).
Regarding claim 17, Palmer in view of Guy teaches the method for facilitating rack space measurement of a data centre as claimed in claim 13,
Guy further teaches wherein the wireless sensor monitoring device (116) further comprises a plurality of microcontroller units (MCU) (412) (Fig. 9A – 12 “Focal control” ) and a plurality of buffer units (408) (Fig. 9A – 15 “Barcode decoder”) operatively coupled to each IR sensor(Fig. 9A – 4 “Camera”, column 8 lines 22-25: “an infrared light source near the camera 4 can illuminate the rack 5 allowing the camera 4 (without IR filter) to read barcodes symbols 3, as well as perforated symbols.”).
Regarding claim 18, Palmer in view of Guy teaches the method for facilitating rack space measurement of a data centre as claimed in claim 17,
Guy further teaches wherein the wireless sensor monitoring device (116) is of a predetermined size that do not require any rack space (Fig. 16 – 25 “computer” , column 5 lines 54-60: “the barcode decoder 15, and the focal control 12 functions can be viewed as implemented within a controller (e.g., a computer 25 also described herein), which controller can include a processor and memory. In some embodiments, the controller can include a network interface, such as a wireless or wired interface, to communicate with a database server and/or other resources external to the computer.”).
Regarding claim 19, Palmer in view of Guy teaches the method for facilitating rack space measurement of a data centre as claimed in claim 13,
Guy further teaches wherein a centralized server (112) operatively coupled to the wireless sensor monitoring device (116) stores the first set of signals, the first set of attributes, a second set of attributes, total space availability in the data centre and total number of computing devices in each rack in the data centre (Fig. 9 – 910 “Rack Management Controller”, column 11 lines 62-67: “RMC 910 also operates as a management access point for passive and active floor tiles upon which server rack 900 is located. In another embodiment, RMC 900 operates to aggregate the management functions of other similar server racks, providing a centralized access point between the other server racks and the data center management system.”, has a system with a centralized server for storing data about spaces in the data center ).
Regarding claim 20, Palmer in view of Guy teaches the method for facilitating rack space measurement of a data centre as claimed in claim 19,
Palmer further teaches wherein a user device (104) is communicably coupled to the centralized server (112) through a network (106), wherein the user device (104) enables a user to store, access and monitor the centralized server (112) remotely through the network (106) (Fig. 1 – 150 “Data Center Management Controller”, column 4 lines 57-58: “DCMC 150 operates to provide a management network for the equipment in server racks” & column 4 line 65- column 5 line 3: “a DCMC includes a dedicated hardware device, a software stack on a dedicated server, a software stack on a server of data center 100, or other hardware, software, or firmware located in the data center or remote from the data center, as needed or desired.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9983601 B2 "System And Method Of Rack Management" (Mick) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2 & Fig. 7.
US 7857214 B2 "Intelligent Track System For Mounting Electronic Equipment" (Saliaris) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 5-94: "Select Rack & Assign U space".
US 20220413875 A1 "Rack Component Detection and Communication" (Mecham) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 5A.
US 11328137 B2 "Autonomously Identifying And Locating Electronic Equipment Modules In A Rack" (Freeman) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1B & Fig. 5.
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 MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights