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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a cooling device” in claim 1 which corresponds to an air conditioner in the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 10-13, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chu et al. (US 2004/0190247 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chu discloses an electronic cabinet (Chu 10) comprising:
A housing (Chu 10) that includes a plurality of surfaces , including a top surface, a bottom surface (Examiner notes a top and bottom must exist for the closed loop airflow 1101 to occur even though they are not explicitly shown), two opposing side surfaces (see annotated figure), a front surface (see annotated figure), a rear surface (see annotated figure),
A cooling device (Chu 1102) mounted to one of the opposing side surfaces (see Chu figure 2) included in the housing; and
An air distribution conduit (see annotated figure) that fluidly couples the cooling device with an interior of the housing,
Wherein the air distribution conduit is shaped to direct air from the cooling device mounted to one of the opposing side surfaces to an exit orifice (see annotated figure) of the air distribution conduit that is located adjacent to an interior face of the front surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
504
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chu figure 2 (annotated)
Regarding claim 2, Chu as applied to claim 1 further discloses:
an electronics rack (Chu 13) extending between the two opposing side surfaces,
the electronics rack being separated from the front surface by a cavity (see Chu figure 2) between the front surface of the electronics cabinet and the front surface facing plane of the electronics rack that is parallel with the front surface (see Chu figure 2),
the cavity permitting air expelled from the exit orifice to permeate through the cavity towards the rear and opposing side surfaces (see Chu figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, Chu as applied to claim 1 teaches the exit orifice is approximately vertically centered between the top surface and the bottom surface (Examiner notes the exit orifice extends the full height between the top and bottom surface and is therefore centered).
Regarding claim 7, Chu as applied to claim 1 teaches the cooling device (Chu 1102) detachably interfaces (see Chu figure 3) with one of the opposing side surfaces.
Regarding claim 10, Chu as applied to claim 1 teaches the front and rear surfaces (Chu 31 and 32) are displaceable doors (see Chu figure 14a).
Regarding claim 11, Chu as applied to claim 1 teaches the exit orifice of the air distribution conduit extends across the entire width between the opposing faces (see annotated figure 2 above) and therefore the exit orifice is centered between the opposing side faces.
Regarding claim 12, , Chu discloses an electronic cabinet (Chu 10) comprising:
A housing (Chu 10) that includes a roof, a floor (Examiner notes roof and floor must exist for the closed loop airflow 1101 to occur even though they are not explicitly shown), two opposing side walls (see annotated figure), a front door (see annotated figure), and a rear door (see annotated figure),
An air conditioning unit (Chu 1102) mounted to one of the opposing side walls (see Chu figure 2) included in the housing; and
An electronics rack (Chu 13) extending between the two opposing side walls and including one or more slots for receiving electronic equipment (Chu 12); and
Ductwork (see annotated figure) that fluidly couples the air conditioning unit with an interior of the housing,
Wherein the ductwork is shaped to direct air from the air conditioner mounted to one of the opposing side walls to an opening of the ductwork (see annotated figure) empties into a cavity defined between an interior face of the front door and a front door facing plan of the electronics rack, the cavity permitting air expelled from the opening to permeate through the cavity towards the rear door and opposing side wall.
PNG
media_image2.png
443
675
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chu figure 2 (annotated)
Regarding claim 13, Chu as applied to claim 12 teaches the opening of the ductwork is approximately vertically centered between the roof and floor (Examiner notes the exit orifice extends the full height between the roof and floor and is therefore centered).
Regarding claim 19, Chu as applied to claim 12 teaches the opening of the ductwork extends across the entire width between the opposing side walls (see annotated figure 2 above) and therefore the exit orifice is centered between the opposing side faces.
Regarding claim 20, Chu discloses a method of operating an electronic cabinet the method comprising:
Providing the electronics cabinet (Chu 10), the electronics cabinet including:
A housing that includes a plurality of surfaces , including a roof, a floor (Examiner notes a roof and floor must exist for the closed loop airflow 1101 to occur even though they are not explicitly shown), two opposing side walls (see annotated figure), a front door (see annotated figure), a rear door (see annotated figure),
An air conditioning unit (Chu 1102) mounted to one of the opposing side walls (see Chu figure 2) included in the housing; and
Ductwork (see annotated figure) that fluidly couples the air conditioning unit with an interior of the housing,
Wherein the ductwork is routed through the interior of the housing (Examiner notes the ductwork is routed along the inside of the door and is therefore inside the housing) to direct air from the air conditioner mounted to one of the opposing side walls to an opening of the ductwork (see annotated figure) that is located adjacent to an interior face of the front door and is vertically centered nearly equidistant from the roof and the floor (Examiner notes the opening extends the full distance from the floor to the roof) and
Operating the air conditioning unit to circulate air through the ductwork into a cavity adjacent an interior face of the front door (see Chu figure 2), the air dissipating heat generated by electronics stored in the electronics cabinet.
Claim Rejections - 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US 2004/0190247 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2024/0240807 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Chu as applied to claim 1 is silent regarding the use of dampers to allow external airflow through the cabinet.
However, Wu teaches an electronics cabinet (Wu 10) that comprises a first damper (Wu 3) located on a front surface (Wu 101) permitting exterior air to convect through the damper to the interior of the housing (see Wu figure 3) and a second damper (Wu 2) on a back surface (Wu 102) permitting air located in the interior of the housing to convect through the second damper to the exterior of the electronics cabinet (see Wu figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Chu’s electronics cabinet to incorporate Wu’s teachings of dampers allowing external airflow to allow more energy efficient cooling without relying upon operation of an active cooling device.
Regarding claim 5, Chu and Wu as applied to claim 4 teach the first damper is located at a first distance from the bottom surface (see Wu figure 3) and the second damper is located at a second distance from the bottom surface (see Wu figure 3), the second distance is greater than the first distance (see Wu figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, Chu and Wu as applied to claim 4 further teach the first damper (Wu 3) interfaces with a ventilation fan (Wu 30) and the second damper (Wu 2) interfaces with a second ventilation fan (Wu 40).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US 2004/0190247 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2024/0240807 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Chu as applied to claim 12 is silent regarding the use of dampers to allow external airflow through the cabinet.
However, Wu teaches an electronics cabinet (Wu 10) that comprises a first damper (Wu 3) located on a front door (Wu 101) permitting exterior air to convect through the damper to the interior of the housing (see Wu figure 3) and a second damper (Wu 2) on a back door (Wu 102) permitting air located in the interior of the housing to convect through the second damper to the exterior of the electronics cabinet (see Wu figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Chu’s electronics cabinet to incorporate Wu’s teachings of dampers allowing external airflow to allow more energy efficient cooling without relying upon operation of an active cooling device.
Regarding claim 15, Chu and Wu as applied to claim 14 teach the first damper is located at a first distance from the floor surface (see Wu figure 3) and the second damper is located at a greater distance from the floor surface (see Wu figure 3), and the first damper (Wu 3) interfaces with a ventilation fan (Wu 30) and the second damper (Wu 2) interfaces with a second ventilation fan (Wu 40).
Regarding claim 16, Chu and Wu as applied to claim 15 further teach the airflow through the dampers is a heat-dissipation airflow (Wu [0030]) and therefore the intake air is cooler external air and the exhaust airflow is hotter air.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The current prior art fails to teach the mounting bracket arrangements recited in claims 8-9 and 17-18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R BRAWNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES R BRAWNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762