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 13-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 13, the claim recites “a second base”, however there is no first base being claimed in the precedent claim thus making the claim indefinite, further, “the first base” lacks proper antecedent basis. For examining purposes, the second base is interpreted as just a base.
With respect to claim 14, the claim recites “a second row”, however there is no first row being claimed in the precedent claim thus making the claim indefinite. For examining purposes, the second row is interpreted as just a row. Further, the claim is indefinite because “the electrical equipment modules and standby generator modules” lack proper antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 15, the claim is indefinite because “the first base” lacks proper antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Motoori US 2019/0164795 A1 (hereinafter ‘Motoori’).
In regard to claim 1, Motoori teaches a device including:
a building structure (facility, see [0032]) comprising an internal space for containing equipment modules (3 see [0034]);
a lifting device (12) adapted to lift, lower (via 27) and move horizontally (via 28) equipment modules within the internal space of the building structure (see [0035]).
In regard to claim 2, Motoori teaches the claimed invention wherein the lifting device includes a hoist for lifting and lowering and equipment module (see [0035 “overhead hoist vehicle”).
In regard to claim 3, Motoori teaches the claimed invention wherein hoist is horizontally translatable to desired locations within the building structure (see [0035] “capable of moving in the horizontal direction along the first track”).
In regard to claim 5, Motoori teaches the claimed invention wherein the modules are configured to be stacked one upon another. As seen in fig. 4 the modules can be stacked one upon another.
In regard to claim 6, Motoori teaches the claimed invention wherein the building structure includes a base (13) supporting the stacked equipment modules (see fig. 4).
In regard to claim 16, Motoori teaches the claimed invention wherein the building structure includes a loading area (4) capable of receiving any type of module (see MPEP 2114). Motoori meets the claim since the modules are not part of the claimed subject matter but part of a functional limitation.
In regard to claims 17 and 18, Motoori teaches the claimed invention including floor members (42) adapted to engage the modules and adapted for connection between successive horizontally adjacent equipment modules (see fig. 4, note that the floor allows for the modules to be connected if needed).
In regard to claim 19, Motoori teaches the claimed invention wherein the floor members are adapted to provide landings, walkways and function as interconnecting structures and to support electrical or mechanical services. Note that the platforms 42 meet all the claimed functional limitations as they support modules and allow for interconnection as needed and are capable of supporting various services.
Alternatively,
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morimoto et a. US 2021/0331866 A1 (hereinafter ‘Morimoto’).
In regard to claim 1, Morimoto teaches a device including:
a building structure (facility 100) comprising an internal space (see fig. 1, there is an internal space enclosed by the ground and ceiling 1) for containing equipment modules (W -Note that article W can meet the function of being an equipment module);
a lifting device (10) adapted to lift, lower (via 15) and move horizontally (via 16 see [0031-0032]) equipment modules within the internal space of the building structure (see fig. 1).
In regard to claim 9, Morimoto teaches the claimed invention wherein the equipment modules include structural support members (43) that are adapted to support the weight of one or more equipment modules stacked thereon.
Claim(s) 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parkhouse et al. US 10907342 B1 (hereinafter ‘Parkhouse’).
In regard to claim 26, Parkhouse teaches a prefabricated equipment module (100) for a data center (see MPEP 2114) adapted to be stacked one upon another (see fig. 5C), the equipment module including:
a frame (101) comprising a base (110) for supporting electrical equipment and one or more support members (105) upstanding from the base;
a coupling (130) adapted to couple the bottom (135) of the frame of one of the equipment modules to the top of the frame of an equipment module below (see fig. 1B).
In regard to claim 27, Parkhouse teaches the claimed invention wherein the coupling includes a mating element (216) provided on the bottom of the frame of the upper equipment module and a complementary mating element (205) provided on the top of the frame of the equipment module below, wherein the mating elements are configured to mate together to secure the equipment modules together (see fig. 2).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoori as applied to claim 1 and in view of Dick et al. US 2015/0375969 A1 (hereinafter ‘Dick’).
In regard to claim 4, Motoori teaches a lifting device but does not specifically include a pair of spaced apart and longitudinally extending rails and a transverse beam extending between the rails, the beam being translatable in a longitudinal direction along the rail and the hoist being translatable transversely along the beam.
Dick teaches a crane system (1) comprising a pair of spaced apart and longitudinally extending rails (see “cross members” on which the beam is movable as disclosed in [0002]) and a transverse beam (2) extending between the rails, the beam being translatable in a longitudinal direction along the rail (see “movable beam” [0045]) and the hoist being translatable transversely along the beam (see carriage 3 that moves along the beam 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a crane system as taught by Dick, in the building of Motoori, so as to provide a more precise and quick movement of the load. Further, note that Dick teaches that these type of crane systems are notoriously well known in the art (see [0003]) and therefore obvious to use because the use of conventional elements to perform their known function is prima facie obvious).
Claims 7, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoori.
In regard to claim 7, Motoori teaches the claimed invention wherein the equipment modules can comprise electrical equipment modules comprising any one or more of medium voltage (MV) or low voltage (LV) switchboards, motor control centers (MCC's), uninterrupted power systems (UPS) and batteries, ring main units (RMU), transformers, bus duct equipment and controls. Note that the facility of Motoori is a semiconductor device manufacturing factory and the modules can be a container used to manufacture semiconductor devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the equipment modules comprise bus duct equipment so as to enable power distribution which is required in the manufacturing of semiconductors.
In regard to claim 13, Motoori teaches the claimed invention wherein the building structure includes a base (13). Motoori does not explicitly teach a second lifting device above or below the first lifting device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application to provide a second lifting device so as to increase the facility’s efficiency in the event of increase in demand. Also, because doing so involves mere duplication of parts and it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04).
In regard to claim 14, Motoori teaches the claimed invention wherein a second row of electrical equipment and generator modules are provided on a second base (see fig. 4).
Note that the facility of Motoori is a semiconductor device manufacturing factory and the modules can be a container used to manufacture semiconductor devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide electrical equipment and generator modules as to enable power distribution which is required in the manufacturing of semiconductors.
In regard to claim 15, Motoori teaches the claimed invention wherein the base includes a opening (see fig. 4, base 13 has lateral openings that allow for the retrieval of the modules, and lifting and lowering as shown in fig. 1B). It is noted that the electrical equipment module and the standby generator module are not being positively claimed as they are part of a functional limitation.
Claims 21, 22, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berman et al. US 3,925,679 (hereinafter ‘Berman’).
In regard to claim 21, Berman teaches a method of assembling a data centre, comprising:
providing a supporting base (200);
lifting a first equipment module (233) above the supporting base (see fig. 8 for exemplary lifting), horizontally translating the first equipment module to a desired location and lowering the equipment module onto the supporting base (see col. 20, ln. 59 -It is noted that Berman discloses placing the modules in a side-by-side configuration thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide horizontal translation so that the modules are placed as required, further note that while the module is translated from the truck to the final location it is lifted above the supporting base as indicated in fig. 8);
lifting a second equipment module (234) above the supporting base, horizontally translating and lowering (as shown in fig. 8) the second equipment module onto de first equipment module (see fig. 13).
In regard to claim 22, Berman teaches the claimed invention including positioning the equipment module beneath a lifting device comprising a hoist, lowering and coupling the hoist to the equipment module lifting the hoist and thereby lifting the equipment module thereto (see col. 20, ln. 64 -Note that it would have been obvious to position the module beneath the lifting device in order to attach it to the lifting cables. Further, note that the lifting and lowering is accomplished by means of a derrick structure (202) and it is notoriously well known in the art that a derrick structure comprises a hoist as part of its mechanism).
In regard to claim 24, Berman teaches the claimed invention including lifting, horizontally translating and lowering a floor member into a position for connection with at least one equipment module (see col. 24, ln. 39-51 -Note that placing the second module 234 stacked upon module 232 requires the module (including its floor structure) to be lifted and horizontally translated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAOLA AGUDELO whose telephone number is (571)270-7986. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 5PM.
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 E 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.
/PAOLA AGUDELO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633