DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed 12/01/2023.
Claim(s) 1-20 have been considered.
- Claim(s) 1-20 are pending.
- Claim(s) 1, 12 and 17 have been indicated to have allowable subject matter over prior arts.
- Claim(s) 1-20 have been rejected as described below.
- This action is NON-FINAL.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner acknowledges the entry of following Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) document(s) from applicant:
The information disclosure statement(s) filed 12/01/2023 has/have been considered by examiner.
A reference mentioned in the IDS has been utilized by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure filed 12/01/2023 is objected to due to having below minor informalities:
The title of the disclosure is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
The drawings filed 12/01/2023 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner for examination.
Claim Interpretation – 35. USC § 112(f)
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 in: Claim(s) 17 – receiving, by a floor tile lift system …, an indication …;
Claim(s) 19 – the floor tile lift system communicates …;
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.
Floor tile lift system has been interpreted in light of exemplary floor tile lift system 300 that includes a lift computing system 310 as in Fig. 3 (floor tile lift system 300) and specification, [0019] and [0022]. [0022] also describes: The lift computing system 310 is configured to receive communication from other systems (such as from computing system 100) and send instructions to cause lifting mechanism 302 to raise floor tile 102.
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 § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “proximate to” in the 3rd limitation of claim 1, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximate to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To promote compact prosecution in order to apply pitot art, the term “proximate to” in “receive, from a computing system proximate to the floor tile, an indication of a service to be performed;” is being interpreted as to mean computing system adjacent to the floor tile.
Claim(s) 12 and 17 is/are rejected based on similar reasons shown for claim 1.
Claim(s) 2-11, 13-16 and 18-20 are rejected based on dependency to claim 1, 12 and 17 respectively.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action as the limitations are not described or suggested by the prior arts of record (including any pertinent art(s)) alone, or in combination.
Regarding claim 1, aside from the cited pertinent art(s) (Chapel (US 20120181869 A1) – see the description of relevancy below in the “Pertinent Art(s)” section), the closest prior art(s) that has/have been found and thoroughly reviewed is/are Holyoake (US 20220270422 A1), Zauderer (US 20230349171 A1) and Palmer (US 20150257311 A1):
Holyoake teaches an intelligent data center floor access system. Note, “In embodiments, the intelligent datacenter floor system 200 provides selective access to the business system infrastructure 145 underneath the intelligent datacenter floor 100. This selective floor access prevents unauthorized access to the business system infrastructure 145 by preventing the lifting of datacenter floor tiles 105, 105a, 105b without appropriate authorization, thereby preserving the integrity of services and safety of users within the datacenter.” (See Fig. 2 as described in paragraphs 0024). However, it doesn’t teach or suggest the features and details of “… receive, from a computing system proximate to the floor tile, an indication of a service to be performed; and raise, via the floor tile coupler and the lifting mechanism, the floor tile to a predetermined height based on the indication of the service to be performed.” as claimed. More specifically, while there are some structural details in this reference, such as a coupler (the lock is interpreted to be the coupler, which aligns with examples from instant application’s specification 0021) in Fig. 1-2 and 0034-36, 0049, etc., the reference doesn’t go into the detail of claimed concept of raising the floor tile to a predetermined height based on a received indication of the service to be performed. Servicing by raising the floor tile is not something that this art focuses on and hence the indication of service type is absent, especially for the purpose of raising the floor tile. Also, note the handle/manual aspect of the lifting itself in this art, which only performs an unlocking function and no raising via a lifting mechanism takes place, let alone to a predetermined height, vs instant application’s claim 1 requiring all of these features. Accordingly, Holyoake does not teach or suggest all the features of claim 1.
Zauderer teaches a modular raised floor module and raised floor systems constructed therefrom. Note, 0118 and 0128 of this art describe a height as the height of the service space (in between the base floor 22 and spaced apart top floor 24), thus that is the height of the floor tile module itself from the instant application’s context. It does not describe anything for the floor tile to be raised to a predetermined height based on a received indication of a service. Accordingly, Zauderer does not teach or suggest all the features of claim 1.
Palmer teaches a floor tile for a data center floor that includes a memory device, a tile management controller coupled to the memory device, and a vent including a baffle and an actuator. The tile management controller receives configuration information for a server rack located on the floor tile, stores the configuration information in the memory device, and controls the actuator to position the baffle in the vent to control an air flow through the vent based on the configuration information (See Fig. 16-19, [0096-97], [0101-02], etc.). Thus, it generally teaches some exemplary communication mechanisms between an active floor tile and a server rack to control air flow between the bottom side of the floor tile and the top side of the floor tile as part of the closed-loop thermal control system utilizing a smart floor tile. However, it does not describe anything for the floor tile to be raised to a predetermined height based on a received indication of a service. Accordingly, Palmer does not teach or suggest all the features of claim 1.
Accordingly, the limitations are not described or suggested by the prior arts of record (including any pertinent art(s)) alone, or in combination:
A floor tile lift system comprising:
a floor tile coupler configured to couple to an underside of a floor tile included in a raised floor;
a lifting mechanism coupled to the floor tile coupler;
and a computer processor configured to:
receive, from a computing system proximate to the floor tile, an indication of a service to be performed;
and raise, via the floor tile coupler and the lifting mechanism, the floor tile to a predetermined height based on the indication of the service to be performed.
Claim(s) 12 and 17 is/are also declared to have similar allowable subject matter over prior arts based on similar reasons shown for claim 1.
Note, claim(s) 2-11, 13-16 and 18-20 depend(s) from claim 1, 12 and 17 respectively.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009,158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Pertinent Art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chapel et al. (US 20120181869 A1) relates to systems and methods that are provided for reliable redundant power distribution. Some embodiments include micro Automatic Transfer Switches (micro-ATSs), including various components and techniques for facilitating reliable auto-switching functionality in a small footprint (e.g., less than ten cubic inches, with at least one dimension being less than a standard NEMA rack height). Other embodiments include systems and techniques for integrating a number of micro-ATSs into a parallel auto-switching module for redundant power delivery to a number of devices. Implementations of the parallel auto-switching module are configured to be mounted in, on top of, or on the side of standard equipment racks. Still other embodiments provide power distribution topologies that exploit functionality of the micro-ATSs and/or the parallel micro-ATS modules.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARZIA T MONTY whose telephone number is (571)272-5441. The examiner can normally be reached on T-F: 11am -5pm (approximately). 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, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5441.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARZIA T MONTY/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights