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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 04/06/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, 13, 15-16, & 18 have been amended.
Regarding “Remarks”:
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 7 lines 15-20, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections due to claim 8 limitations directed towards "communication architecture" & "antenna unit" have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claim 8 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 7 lines 21-27, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to minor grammatical errors & consistency of claims 8, 9, & 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objec of claim, 9, & 13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 10 line 22 to page 11 line 18, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claim 8 due how the 'antenna unit collects a signal'" have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claim 8 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 11 lines 19-24, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) rejection of claim 4 due to improper dependency have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(d) rejection of 4 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 11 lines 25 to page 30 line 8, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1-7, & 13-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejectio of claims 1- has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding “Remarks”:
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 7 lines 1-9, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections due to claim 1 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.
Applicant argues that (page 7 lines 5-9):
“Claim 1 has been amended to further clarify the claim. … which disclose that each IR sensor includes an IR transmitter configured to emit infrared signals and an IR receiver configured to receive reflected infrared signals”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Signals are defined as (previously cited ‘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.”
However, the claims do not make it clear why a signal or information would be sent to the rack which is not disclosed as having processing functionality for this signal or information. Figs 4 indicate that an IR light is directed towards the rack which has an image/pattern whose reflected IR light is then encoded with a signal (encoding is done by different amounts of reflectivity in different locations of the image/pattern thereby creating a signal).
Note: amendment effectively redefines standard interpretation of an IR sensor as including a transmitter and a receiver, thereby clarifying the claimed ‘sensor’ as having functionality which would otherwise not be assumed.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 7 lines 10-14, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections due to claim 3, 4, 15, and 16 limitations directed towards "that a plurality of IR sensors are positioned within each rack at predefined locations for monitoring rack space" have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 7 lines 10-14):
“Claims 3, 4, 15 and 16 are amended to clarify the claim, maintain consistency and fix any infirmities. …. Which discloses that a plurality of IR sensors are positioned within each rack at predefined locations…”
Examiner respectfully responds:
It is not clear how or why “IR sensors are positioned … at predefined locations”. A POSITA would not know what the ‘predefined’ implies about the claimed invention since there is no explanation. For the purposes of examination, and based on Figs. 4, it is assumed that the “predefined locations” is to arrange the receivers to receive reflected IR light from an image or rack identifier.
Regarding “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112”:
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 8 lines 1-15, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections due to claim 1 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.
Applicant argues that (page 8 lines 5-9):
“The Examiner asserts that the term “sensor” does not inherently include both a transmitter and a receiver.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The rejection was about sending a signal to a device (the rack) which does not have processing ability for that signal; nor was there sufficient disclosure as to how the IR light transmitted towards the rack would be encoded with a signal.
Signals are defined as (previously cited ‘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.”
However, the claims do not make it clear why a signal or information would be sent to the rack which is not disclosed as having processing functionality for this signal or information. Figs 4 indicate that an IR light is directed towards the rack which has an image/pattern whose reflected IR light is then encoded with a signal (encoding is done by different amounts of reflectivity in different locations of the image/pattern thereby creating a signal).
Note: amendment effectively redefines standard interpretation of an IR sensor as including a transmitter and a receiver, thereby clarifying the claimed ‘sensor’ as having functionality which would otherwise not be assumed.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 8 lines 16 to page 9 line 15, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections due to claim 3 limitations directed towards "wherein the plurality 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" have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 8 lines 26-29):
“The Examiner asserts that it is unclear how an IR transmitter would transmit a signal to a rack and receive a reflected signal, and interprets the claims as requiring that the reflected IR light be encoded with a signal. Applicant respectfully submits that this interpretation is inconsistent with both the claim language and the present disclosure.”
& that (page 9 lines 10-11):
“The Examiner’s interpretation that the reflected signal must include encoded information is therefore not supported by the claim language or the specification.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
If there were no encoding of a signal on to the transmitting medium (IR light) then there would be no signal. However, the claim states “IR transmitter (418) is configured to transmit an IR signal to a rack”. The rack as disclosed or claimed does not clearly have any processing ability for such a signal. If there is no signal then there is no information; rather, just an infrared light source.
Note: based on Figs. 4, it appears that ‘an IR light source is directed towards the rack and upon interacting with an image or pattern a signal from the rack to the receiver is encoded in the reflected IR light.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 9 lines 16 to page 10 line 21, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections due to claim 4 & 16 limitations directed towards "each IR sensor is of a predetermined size place at a predefined distance from each other in based on a length of each rack in the data centre." have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 9 lines 24-29):
“The term “predefined position” refers to positions that are determined prior to operation of the system, such as during design or installation, and are fixed for consistent sensing across racks. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the sensors are place at known, fixed locations within each rack to enable reliable detection of reflected IR signals. To further clarify the scope, the claims have been amended to recite that he sensors are placed at fixed positions within each rack.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The claim(s) as stated require “predefined position” but it is not disclosed as to how this predefining is done. The claim claims necessary subject matter but does not adequately disclose that subject matter. A POSITA would not know what positions the sensors are placed at or how the predefining was done (but the claim requires this subject matter).
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 10-11 recites the limitation "wherein the plurality of IR 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:
“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 to devices which don’t receive data (i.e., racks without receivers) and then the sensor receiving data. However, the racks aren’t described as having processing capability for such a signal sent from sensors.
[Conclusion]
Therefore, (and based on Figs. 4) it is assumed that an IR light is directed towards an image/pattern on the rack and the reflection is received and then processed.
Note: the rack does not seem to have processing capability for an IR signal so it is not clear why “the plurality of IRsensors (420) is configured to transmit an infrared signal (IR) to each rack”
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 4 in 1-3 and Claim 16 in 1-3 recites the limitation "each IR sensor is of a predetermined size and arranged at fixed positions within each rack, with spacing between adjacent IR sensors determined 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.
Claims 2-7, & 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 8-12 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 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) is configured to communicate data corresponding to 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 data corresponding to the amount of space availability in the rack determined by the system (110); transmit the received data corresponding to 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 data corresponding to 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 data corresponding to 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. ).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8976515 B2 “System And Method For An Optimizable Rack Solution” (Schmitt) is relevant to the Applicant’s disclosure, see Fig. 5 & Fig. 6
US 20110175503 A1 “Equipment Cabinet Having Improved Space Utilization” (Chamarti) is relevant to the Applicant’s disclosure, see Fig. 1
US 9606316 B1 “Data Center Infrastructure” (Gandhi) is relevant to the Applicant’s disclosure, see Figs. 1 & Fig. 7
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
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights