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 .
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 30, 39, 42 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.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the cabling" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 39, the phrase "may be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 42, it is unclear how the recited components are mounted within the interstitial space as it has not been described in the disclosure. The examiner will examine as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 27-29, 45-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Slessman, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0148291.
Regarding claim 27, Slessman discloses a modular construction comprising: a plurality of sub-assemblies (components 500, Fig. 5B), wherein each sub-assembly of the plurality of sub-assemblies comprises a plurality of integrated system modules (500) and is configured to be coupled with one or more structural components within a facility to construct an operational infrastructure for one or more application environments housed in the facility; wherein at least one ISM of the plurality of ISMs comprises a first functional component (500) and a second functional component (environmental management component, paragraph 10), wherein the first functional component is configured to be mounted on a first surface of a platform base (paragraph 57), wherein the second functional component is configured to be mounted within an interstitial space of the platform base (505; paragraph 65), and wherein the second functional component is configured to connect the first functional component to the application environment (via pipes, paragraph 65). The phrases “configured to be coupled with one or more structural components within a facility to construct an operational infrastructure for one or more application environments housed in the facility,” “configured to be mounted on a first surface of a platform base,” “configured to be mounted within an interstitial space of the platform base,” and “configured to connect the first functional component to the application environment” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 28, Slessman discloses a modular construction wherein each of the plurality of ISMs has a linear shape (see Figs. 5).
Regarding claim 29, Slessman discloses a modular construction wherein the first functional component comprises electrical power equipment comprising primary electrical equipment or reserve electrical equipment (IT equipment, paragraph 68).
Regarding claim 45, Slessman discloses a modular construction wherein each sub-assembly comprises one or more continuous zones (535) configured to allow human operator access between the plurality of ISMs. The phrase “configured to allow human operator access between the plurality of ISMs” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 46, Slessman discloses a modular construction wherein the continuous zones are configured to increase ease of access for maintenance, repair, and replacement of functional equipment of the plurality of ISMs (as they allow for passage, see Fig. 5B). The phrase “configured to increase ease of access for maintenance, repair, and replacement of functional equipment of the plurality of ISMs” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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) 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slessman, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0148291.
Regarding claim 30, Slessman discloses a modular construction but does not specifically disclose wherein the second functional component comprises the cabling to couple the electrical power equipment to the application environment (combined above-floor space). Slessman teaches the sub-floor space can contain environmental management components for monitoring and/or controlling the environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity, air pressure, etc.) and/or other equipment for monitoring, controlling, and maintaining the operation of a data center (paragraph 65). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that wiring would be present to control operation of the data center. The phrase “to couple the electrical power equipment to the application environment” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 31, Slessman discloses a modular construction but does not specifically disclose wherein the primary electrical equipment provides up to 10 megawatts (MW) of power to the application environment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the power necessary to support the amount of equipment needed for a particular application, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Claim(s) 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slessman, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0148291 in view of Schmitt et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0194893.
Regarding claim 32, Slessman discloses a modular construction, but does not specifically disclose wherein the primary electrical equipment comprises a battery room, an uninterruptable power supply (UPS), and a transfer switch (TS) configured to provide uninterruptable power supply to the application environment. Schmitt teaches use of a transfer switch, UPS, and batteries in an IT environment (paragraphs 97-98). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such components as they are typical components in a data center facility.
Regarding claim 33, the prior art as modified discloses a modular construction including a transfer switch but does not specifically disclose comprises a static transfer switch (STS), and wherein the primary electrical equipment further comprises a set of distribution panels configured to route power to the STS and from the STS to the application environment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a static transfer switch to provide uninterrupted power. Slessman teaches distribution panels (paragraph 72). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the distribution panels be capable of routing power to equipment within the facility as that is the primary purpose of a distribution panel. The phrase “configured to route power to the STS and from the STS to the application environment” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 34, Slessman discloses a modular construction but does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of ISMs is configured to provide a ratio of reserve power ISMs to primary power ISMs of at least 1:2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the power necessary to support the amount of equipment needed for a particular application, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 The phrase “configured to provide a ratio of reserve power ISMs to primary power ISMs of at least 1:2” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim(s) 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slessman, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0148291 in view of Eichelberg et al., U.S. Patent 9,485,887.
Regarding claim 35, Slessman discloses a modular construction but does not specifically disclose reserve electrical equipment, wherein the reserve electrical equipment comprises a battery room and a distribution panel. Eichelberg teaches a data center facility having power reserve equipment (col. 5, lines 60-62). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include reserve power electrical equipment to maintain constant operation of a data center facility, and to include a battery for backup power as it is well known in the art. Slessman teaches distribution panels (paragraph 72). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the distribution panels be capable of routing power to equipment within the facility as that is the primary purpose of a distribution panel.
Regarding claim 36, Slessman discloses a modular construction but does not specifically disclose wherein the second functional component comprises the cabling to couple the distribution panel to the application environment, other functional components of the plurality of ISMs, or a combination thereof. Slessman teaches the sub-floor space can contain environmental management components for monitoring and/or controlling the environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity, air pressure, etc.) and/or other equipment for monitoring, controlling, and maintaining the operation of a data center (paragraph 65). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that wiring/cabling would be present to control operation of the data center. The phrase “to couple the distribution panel to the application environment, other functional components of the plurality of ISMs, or a combination thereof” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim(s) 37-39, 40-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slessman, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0148291 in view of Farshchian et al., U.S. Patent 9,485,887.
Regarding claim 37, Slessman discloses a modular construction but does not specifically disclose wherein the first functional component comprises one or more Cooling Distribution Units (CDUs). Farshchian teaches a cooling distribution unit utilized within a data center (paragraph 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include such equipment as it is equipment typical of a data center to keep it cool.
Regarding claim 38, the prior art discloses a modular construction but does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more CDUs are connected to an open or closed water based cooling system. Farshchian teaches a liquid cooler (paragraph 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect a CDU to a water based cooling system as it is well known in the art to utilize water/liquid in cooling systems.
Regarding claim 39, the prior art as modified discloses a modular construction but does not specifically disclose wherein the number of CDUs included in the plurality of sub-assemblies may be N + 1, where N is the cooling capacity required to run the application environment, and N + 1 is the cooling capacity needed to run the application environment taking into account an additional component to compensate for the failure or maintenance of one CDU. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cooling units necessary to support the amount of equipment needed for a particular application, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 40, Slessman, as modified, discloses a modular construction including a CDU but does not specifically disclose wherein each of the one or more CDUs comprise Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing (MEP) power distribution, a heat exchanger, a buffer tank, a venturi, a pump, closed loop piping, and open loop piping. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include such equipment, as they are components typical of cooling equipment.
Regarding claim 41, Slessman discloses a modular construction wherein one or more of the plurality of ISMs comprises cooling equipment mounted within the interstitial space of the platform base (paragraph 57), but does not specifically disclose wherein the cooling equipment connects the one or more CDUs to the application environment, and wherein the one or more of the plurality of ISMs comprises no functional components on the first surface of the platform base. Slessman teaches the sub-floor space can contain environmental management components for monitoring and/or controlling the environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity, air pressure, etc.) and/or other equipment for monitoring, controlling, and maintaining the operation of a data center (paragraph 65). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the sub-floor components would connect together the facility equipment to keep conduits hidden from sight. It would also have been obvious that functional components will not be placed in a module where it is not required.
Regarding claim 42, the prior art as modified discloses a modular construction wherein the cooling equipment comprises one or more pods comprising one or more racks configured to provide hot aisle cooling, rear door cooling, immersion cooling, or direct to chip cooling to the application environment (paragraphs 5-6, generally).
Regarding claim 43, Slessman discloses a modular construction, but does not specifically disclose wherein the cooling equipment is sized to provide N + X cooling capacity, where N is the cooling capacity required to run the application environment and X is a positive integer, and N + X is the cooling capacity needed to run the application environment taking into account X additional components to compensate for the failure or maintenance of two pieces of cooling equipment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cooling units necessary to support the amount of equipment needed for a particular application, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 The phrase “sized to provide N + X cooling capacity, where N is the cooling capacity required to run the application environment and X is a positive integer, and N + X is the cooling capacity needed to run the application environment taking into account X additional components to compensate for the failure or maintenance of two pieces of cooling equipment” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slessman, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0148291 in view of Huo et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0313523.
Regarding claim 44, Slessman discloses a modular construction, but does not specifically disclose wherein the first functional component comprises fire suppression equipment configured to provide the necessary fire suppression to the application environment as required by local, regional, or national code. Huo teaches a fire suppression kit in a facility (paragraph 24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize fire suppression equipment in a facility having heat producing equipment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633