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 Arguments
Applicant’s amendments replacing “cooling device” with “air conditioner” have overcome the 112(f) interpretation.
After further search and consideration new rejections have been written in view of Chu et al. (US 2004/0190247 A) and Leezer et al. (US 2023/0213214 A1).
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 12-17, and 19 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 s 12 and 17 recites the limitation "the frame". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13-16 and 19 depend upon claim 12 and therefore contain the same rejected claim language.
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) 12-13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chu et al. (US 2004/0190247 A).
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 routed through the frame (the entire assembly of air conditioner and housing has been interpreted as a frame) and 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
Wherein the ductwork is routed along and/or about a 90 degree angle from the sidewall to the front door (see annotated figure, airflow is routed around a 90 degree turn from flowing toward the front door to flowing along the front door.
PNG
media_image1.png
507
552
media_image1.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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-3, 7, 9-11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US 2004/0190247 A) in view of Leezer et al. (US 2023/0213214 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),
An air conditioner (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 air conditioner with an interior of the housing,
Wherein the air distribution conduit is shaped to direct air from the air conditioner 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_image2.png
461
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chu figure 2 (annotated)
Chu is silent regarding how the air conditioner is mounted to the housing.
However, Leezer teaches an air conditioner indoor unit (Leezer 102) mounted to a wall utilizing a mounting plate (Leezer 105) utilizing a French cleat (Leezer [0027], “any other suitable configurations/mechanisms, such as, a nut combined with a screw/shaft, geometric coupling (e.g., pin and slots, French cleats, etc.), and fasteners of many types (e.g., screws, rivets, pins, ball detents, etc.)”). Examiner notes that applicant’s specification discloses the L-shaped bracket is a French cleat (see applicant’s specification [0008] “the bottom L-shaped bracket may be a French cleat”).
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 utilize Leezer’s teachings of mounting an air conditioner unit utilizing a French cleat to produce a predictable result of allowing toolless mounting and removal of the air conditioner unit.
Regarding claim 2, Chu and Leezer as applied to claim 1 further teach:
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 and Leezer 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 and Leezer as applied to claim 1 teaches the air conditioner (Chu 1102) detachably interfaces (see Chu figure 3) with one of the opposing side surfaces.
Regarding claim 9, 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),
An air conditioner (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 air conditioner with an interior of the housing,
Wherein the air distribution conduit is shaped to direct air from the air conditioner 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_image2.png
461
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chu figure 2 (annotated)
Chu is silent regarding how the air conditioner is secured to the side surface of the housing.
However, Leezer teaches an air conditioner indoor unit (Leezer 102) mounted to a wall utilizing a mounting plate (Leezer 105) utilizing a French cleat (Leezer [0027], “any other suitable configurations/mechanisms, such as, a nut combined with a screw/shaft, geometric coupling (e.g., pin and slots, French cleats, etc.), and fasteners of many types (e.g., screws, rivets, pins, ball detents, etc.)”).
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 utilize Leezer’s teachings of mounting an air conditioner unit utilizing a French cleat to produce a predictable result of allowing toolless mounting and removal of the air conditioner unit.
Regarding claim 10, Chu and Leezer 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 and Leezer 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 17, 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 routed through the frame (the entire assembly of air conditioner and housing has been interpreted as a frame) and 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
Wherein the ductwork is routed along and/or about a 90 degree angle from the sidewall to the front door (see annotated figure, airflow is routed around a 90 degree turn from flowing toward the front door to flowing along the front door.
PNG
media_image1.png
507
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chu figure 2 (annotated)
Chu is silent regarding how the air condition unit is secured to the sidewall.
However, Leezer teaches an air conditioner indoor unit (Leezer 102) mounted to a wall utilizing a mounting plate (Leezer 105) utilizing a French cleat (Leezer [0027], “any other suitable configurations/mechanisms, such as, a nut combined with a screw/shaft, geometric coupling (e.g., pin and slots, French cleats, etc.), and fasteners of many types (e.g., screws, rivets, pins, ball detents, etc.)”). Examiner notes that applicant’s specification discloses the L-shaped bracket is a French cleat (see applicant’s specification [0008] “the bottom L-shaped bracket may be a French cleat”).
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 utilize Leezer’s teachings of mounting an air conditioner unit utilizing a French cleat to produce a predictable result of allowing toolless mounting and removal of the air conditioner unit.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US 2004/0190247 A1) and Leezer et al. (US 2023/0213214 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2024/0240807 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Chu and Leezer as applied to claim 1 are 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, Leezer, 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, Leezer, 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) and Leezer et al. (US 2023/0213214 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2024/0240807 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Chu and Leezer as applied to claim 12 are 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, Leezer 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, Leezer, 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.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES R BRAWNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner,
Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights