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 .
Claims 1-9, 11-20 are pending.
Claim(s) 10 is/are cancelled.
Claim Objections
The objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
This rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 3, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant's amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-16, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bailey et al, US Patent Pub US 20190327862 A1 (hereinafter Bailey).
Claim 1
Bailey discloses a controller device for cooling a sealed enclosure via closed loop cooling (Bailey, para 4, Fig. 2 refs (202, 208, 234, 272, 282) – An air handling unit controller for closed loop cooling of a modular data center/”sealed enclosure”.), comprising: a non-transitory storage device comprising executable instructions (Bailey, para 46 – Memory storing executable instructions.) configured to: access, from a temperature sensor, an ambient temperature value indicative of temperature outside of the sealed enclosure (Bailey, para 27 – Exterior ambient air temperature sensor.); the temperature sensor being disposed at an outside position relative to the sealed enclosure (Bailey, para 27 fig. 1 ref(130) – An outside air temperature transducer.); wherein the sealed enclosure protects contents of the sealed enclosure from ambient air, sealing out the ambient air (Bailey, para 26, fig. 1 refs(108, 118, 120, 122, 128) - The air handling unit controller selects an air handling mode for cooling air to be solely recirculated IT return air from the return by closing intake and exhaust dampers and opening a recirculation damper.); begin operation of an auxiliary component responsive to the ambient temperature value being within a predetermined range (Bailey, para 23, 30 – Closed mode is activated when the AHU controller determines that outside/ambient air is unsuitable to use for cooling air as being too cold and/or too humid. Closed mode recirculates all IT return air and generally uses only mechanical cooling to remove heat from AHU. Closed mode can also be used with supplemental heating/”auxiliary component” instead of mechanical cooling when the temperature of the cooling air is less than a minimum temperature threshold/”predetermined range” and/or the humidity value of the cooling air is greater than a humidity threshold/”predetermined range”.); access, from the temperature sensor, an updated ambient temperature value (Bailey, para 37 – Monitoring/updated ambient temperature readings from the external temperature sensor.); begin operation of an air conditioner responsive to determining the updated ambient temperature value is outside of the predetermined range. (Bailey, para 27 – Operating the air handling unit in response to the outdoor ambient temperature being outside the predetermined range, by adding heating or cooling as needed.)
This rejection also applies to claims 11 and 20.
Claim 2
Bailey discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Bailey further discloses the auxiliary component is a heat exchanger. (Bailey, para 32 – Heat exchanger coils in the HVAC unit.)
This rejection also applies to claim 12
Claim 3
Bailey discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Bailey further discloses ceasing operation of the auxiliary component where the updated ambient temperature value indicates the value is outside of the predetermined range. (Bailey, para 30-31 – The controller transitions a blower and intake chamber damper/”auxiliary component” to a closed state reducing or blocking the intake of outside air if the outdoor ambient temperature is outside an acceptable/predetermined range.)
This rejection also applies to claim 13
Claim 4
Bailey discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Bailey further discloses re-activate operation of the auxiliary component where the updated ambient temperature value indicates the value is at or above a high temperature set point. (Bailey, para 31 – The controller transitions a blower and intake chamber damper/”auxiliary component” to a closed state reducing or blocking the intake of outside air if the outdoor ambient temperature is above an acceptable range/”high temperature setpoint”.)
This rejection also applies to claim 14
Claim 5
Bailey discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Bailey further discloses to begin operation of the air conditioner comprises operating the air conditioner to provide cooling to the enclosure. (Bailey, para 27 – Operating the air handling unit in response to the outdoor ambient temperature being outside the predetermined range, by adding heating or cooling as needed.)
This rejection also applies to claim 15
Claim 6
Bailey discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Bailey further discloses to begin operation of the air conditioner comprises operating the air conditioner to provide heating to the enclosure. (Bailey, para 27 – Operating the air handling unit in response to the outdoor ambient temperature being outside the predetermined range, by adding heating or cooling as needed.)
This rejection also applies to claim 16
Claim 9
Bailey discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Bailey further discloses after beginning operation of the air conditioner responsive to determining the updated ambient temperature value is outside of the predetermined range, confirm an internal temperature value for the enclosure prior to continuing operation of the air conditioner. (Bailey, para 27 – Comparing/confirming indoor and outdoor temperatures to determine the type of continued operation of the air handling unit.)
This rejection also applies to claim 19
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 7, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al, US Patent Pub US 20190327862 A1 (hereinafter Bailey) as applied to claims 1-6, 9-16, 19-20 above, and in view of Liebert, US Patent Num US 4271678 A (hereinafter Liebert)
Claim 7
Bailey discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Bailey fails to specify the predetermined temperature range is 40 degrees Fahrenheit (F) to 70 degrees F.
However Liebert teaches the predetermined temperature range is 35 degrees Fahrenheit (F) to 65 degrees F. (Liebert, C12 L60 – C13 L35 – In the ambient outdoor temperature range of 35-65 degrees F, precooling return air using the ambient air.)
Bailey and Liebert are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to air cooling systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above air cooling system, as taught by Bailey, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Liebert.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to reduce energy consumption by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Liebert (C13 L1-2).
This rejection also applies to claim 17
Claim(s) 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al, US Patent Pub US 20190327862 A1 (hereinafter Bailey) as applied to claims 1-6, 9-16, 19-20 above, and in view of De Felice et al, US Patent Pub US 20200029459 A1 (hereinafter De Felice)
Claim 8
Bailey discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Bailey fails to specify executable instructions configured to provide an alarm.
However De Felice teaches executable instructions configured to provide an alarm. (De Felice, para 25-26, 48 – Generating alarms and notifications by the control system processor.)
Bailey and De Felice are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to air cooling systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above air cooling system, as taught by Bailey, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by De Felice.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to prevent damage by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by De Felice (para 48).
This rejection also applies to claim 18
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E OGG whose telephone number is (469) 295-9163. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 7:30 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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.
/DAVID EARL OGG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights