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 § 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.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barbier – US 20190033897.
As to claim 11, Barbier teaches a sensor device 100 (fig.1: server 100 corresponds to “a sensor device” because there are plurality of pressure sensors inside of server housing 102 as seen in para. 0026-0027; thus “a sensor device”), comprising:
a sensor housing 102 forming a mounting space and including a first vent 104 and a second vent 106 through which air flows in and out (fig.1);
a plurality of sensor modules provided in the mounting space of the sensor housing 102 (see described fig.1; [0026-0027]: server enclosure includes a plurality of circuit boards; each one could include an internal pressure sensor to reflect the pressure of that circuit board; each (circuit board and a respective internal pressure sensor) corresponds to “sensor module”; thus “a plurality of sensor modules provided in the mounting space of the sensor housing”);
a first fan 122 provided on the first vent 104 ([0025]: an inlet fan 122 coupled to the inlet vent 104 at an interior surface of the enclosure 102; thus “a first fan provided on the first vent”); and
a second fan 120 provided on the second vent 106 ([0025]: an outlet fan 120 coupled to the outlet vent 106 at an interior surface of the enclosure 102; thus “a second fan provided on the second vent”).
PNG
media_image1.png
514
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 13, Barbier further teaches an air induction device configured to guide air from the first and second vents to pass through the plurality of sensor modules ([0023, 0026-0027]: internal surface of enclosure or sensor housing corresponds to “an air induction device” because internal surface of enclosure or sensor housing at least aid in containing (or guiding) air from the first and second vents to pass through the plurality of sensor modules; thus “an air induction device configured to guide air from the first and second vents to pass through the plurality of sensor modules”).
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.
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Barbier – US 20190033897.
As to claim 12, while Barbier teaches the first and second vents 104,106 of sensor housing 102, it does not explicitly teach the first and second vents are provided to face each other.
Since Barbier reference does not state that it is impossible to have the first and second vents are provided to face each other, it would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange fan 120 and vent 106 of Barbier such that the first and second vents are provided to face each other, while still solve the same problem: to allow ambient air around the sensor housing or enclosure to flow into the sensor housing or enclosure, and internal air inside the sensor housing or enclosure to be discharged into the ambient air ([0022]), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
As to claim 16, while Barbier teaches the pressure sensors 110, 114 are first calibrated with all other equipment off and with the server 100 at a steady state thermally, electrically, and mechanically ([0024]), it does not explicitly teach wherein, at a calibration position to calibrate a sensor module of the plurality of sensor modules: the first fan and the second fan operate in a direction to discharge air from the mounting space to an outside so as to form negative pressure in the mounting space.
Since Barbier teaches the pressure sensors 110, 114 are first calibrated with all other equipment off and with the server 100 at a steady state thermally, electrically, and mechanically ([0024]), it would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vacuum the sensor housing (or “the first fan and the second fan operate in a direction to discharge air from the mounting space to an outside so as to form negative pressure in the mounting space”) such that at a calibration position to calibrate a sensor module of the plurality of sensor modules, because a sensor housing needs to be vacuumed during calibration primarily to eliminate the interference of residual air molecules and contaminants, thereby creating a controlled, stable, and pure environment for accurate measurement against a known standard.
Claim 15 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Barbier and further in view of Mecham – US 20230398483.
As to claim 15, Barbier teaches the first fan 122 operates in a direction to introduce air into the mounting space; and the second fan 120 operates in a direction to discharge air from the mounting space, but it does not explicitly teach at a sensing position to measure pollutants of external air.
Mecham teaches particulate sensor 108 for sensing/detecting if air inside enclosure 408 of server system 404 is dirty ([0059, 0105] and fig.4: Particulate matter that enters a server system, computer, or workstation can, over time, cause system deterioration via multiple methods: clogged and stuck fans, buildup and blockage of vents, and/or potential static discharge. In some extreme cases, for example, where a dirty or high-particulate environment is not monitored and/or controlled, incidents could occur where dust or debris (e.g., particulate) may contact heat generating components of servers and catch fire (causing catastrophic thermal failures), or dust buildup could cause fans to behave below their performance specifications).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify enclosure or sensor housing of Barbier with concept teachings of Mecham to include at a sensing position to measure pollutants of external air: the first fan operates in a direction to introduce air into the mounting space; and the second fan operates in a direction to discharge air from the mounting space, because particulate matter that enters a server system, computer, or workstation can, over time, cause system deterioration via multiple methods: clogged and stuck fans, buildup and blockage of vents, and/or potential static discharge. In some extreme cases, for example, where a dirty or high-particulate environment is not monitored and/or controlled, incidents could occur where dust or debris (e.g., particulate) may contact heat generating components of servers and catch fire (causing catastrophic thermal failures), or dust buildup could cause fans to behave below their performance specifications ([0059]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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:
As to claim 14, claim 14 includes at least one partition wall provided between the bottom plate and the upper plate, and configured to form the seating portion on which the sensor module of the plurality of sensor modules is seated in cooperation with the bottom plate and the upper plate, wherein an air induction hole is formed in the at least one partition wall, when in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 14.
Claims 1-10 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 1, claim 1 includes a first door and a second door configured to selectively block the first and second vents of the sensor housing, respectively, when in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 1.
As to claims 2-10, claims 2-10 are also allowable because of they depend on claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUONG D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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.
/TRUONG D PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855