DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-10 as filed on 4/15/2024 are pending and herewith considered as indicated below.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN 2023104335376, filed on 04/21/2023.
4. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
5. Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Double Patenting
6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
7. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
8. The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
9. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
10. Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending application No. 18/635,871 (PG Pub 2024/0357762 A1) (reference application) in view of Leigh et al (US 20220244762 A1)(herein Leigh). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications name the same inventive entity.
In regards to Claim 1 of the pending application and Claim 1 of ‘871, both disclose
A prefabricated data center computer room, comprising a modular cabinet and a modular channel; wherein
the modular channel comprises a frame body comprising a first frame and a second frame , a preset distance being provided between the first frame and the second frame to form a hot channel ;
the first frame and the second frame both have a truss structure, a certain spacing being provided between the truss structure and a bottom of the frame body to form a containment area, a plurality of the modular cabinets being provided, and the plurality of modular cabinets being arranged side by side in the containment area.
However, ‘871 fails to disclose a guide component is further arranged inside the containment area, and when the modular cabinet comes into contact with the guide component, the guide component provides a friction force to the modular cabinet, such that the modular cabinet moves along the guide component.
Furthermore, Leigh discloses a guide component (1300) [Figs 13A-13B] is further arranged inside the containment area [Unnumbered, Fig 2, Immediate Application], and when the modular cabinet (20, Immediate Application) comes into contact with the guide component (1300) [Figs 13A-13B], the guide component (1300) [Figs 13A-13B] provides a friction force [0049] to the modular cabinet (20, Immediate Application), such that the modular cabinet (20, Immediate Application) moves along the guide component (1300, Chu) [Figs 13A-13B].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prefabricated data center computer room as disclosed by Chu to further include a guide component is further arranged inside the containment area, and when the modular cabinet comes into contact with the guide component, the guide component provides a friction force to the modular cabinet, such that the modular cabinet moves along the guide component as disclosed by Leigh. When modified, the guide component allows for coordination regarding the modular cabinets further allowing ease of installation and movement during installation.
In regards to Claims 2-4 and Claims 7-10 of the pending application and Claims 2-4, and 7-10 of ‘871 the scope is the same.
Claims 5-6 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected independent claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Drawings
11. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the channel door frame (as in claim 10) and the containment area (as disclosed in claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
12. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the channel door frame (as in claim 10) and containment area (as disclosed in claim 1) as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
13. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the containment area (as disclosed in claim 1) as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
14. The drawings are objected to because the containment area (as disclosed in claim 1) does not have an element reference number.
15. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
16. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The containment area (as disclosed in claim 1) does not have a reference element. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
17. Claims 9-10 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.
In regards to Claim 9, "the two truss structures" in line 3 lack proper antecedent basis. "The two truss structures" has not originally been presented in independent claim 1.
In regards to Claim 10, "the two truss structures" in line 2 lack proper antecedent basis. "The two truss structures" has not originally been presented in independent Claim 1 as Claim 10 is dependent on Claim 9, which is further dependent on Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
18. 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.
19. Claims 1-2, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen-Gang Chu (CN 215978665)(Herein Chu) and Leigh et al (US 20220244762 A1)(herein Leigh).
In regards to Claim 1, Chu discloses
A prefabricated data center computer room [Abstract] [Figs 1-3], comprising a modular cabinet (6) [Figs 2-3] and a modular channel [Specific Implementation Examples, Paragraph 3] [Unnumbered, Fig 2] (see examiners comments); wherein
the modular channel [Specific Implementation Examples, Paragraph 3] [Unnumbered, Fig 2] (see examiners comments) comprises a frame body [Abstract, Fig 2] (see examiners comments) comprising a first frame [Unnumbered, Fig 2] (see examiners comments) and a second frame [Unnumbered, Fig 2] (see examiners comments), a preset distance being provided between the first frame [Unnumbered, Fig 2] (see examiners comments) and the second frame [Unnumbered, Fig 2] (see examiners comments) to form a hot channel [Specific Implementation Examples, Paragraph 3] [Unnumbered, Fig 2] (see examiners comments) ;
the first frame [Unnumbered, Fig 2] (see examiners comments) and the second frame [Unnumbered, Fig 2] (see examiners comments) both have a truss structure (2) [Fig 3] , a certain spacing being [Fig 1, showing spacing] provided between the truss structure (2) [Fig 3] and a bottom of the frame body [Abstract, Fig 2] (see examiners comments) to form a containment area [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments) , a plurality of the modular cabinets (6) [Figs 2-3] being provided, and the plurality of modular cabinets (6) [Figs 2-3] being arranged side by side [Fig 3] in the containment area [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments);
However, Chu fails to disclose a guide component is further arranged inside the containment area, and when the modular cabinet comes into contact with the guide component, the guide component provides a friction force to the modular cabinet, such that the modular cabinet moves along the guide component.
Furthermore, Leigh discloses
a guide component (1300) [Figs 13A-13B] is further arranged inside the containment area [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Chu] (see examiners comments), and when the modular cabinet (6, Chu) [Figs 2-3] comes into contact with the guide component (1300) [Figs 13A-13B], the guide component (1300) [Figs 13A-13B] provides a friction force [0049] to the modular cabinet (6, Chu) [Figs 2-3], such that the modular cabinet (6, Chu) [Figs 2-3] moves along the guide component (1300, Chu) [Figs 13A-13B].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prefabricated data center computer room as disclosed by Chu to further include a guide component is further arranged inside the containment area, and when the modular cabinet comes into contact with the guide component, the guide component provides a friction force to the modular cabinet, such that the modular cabinet moves along the guide component as disclosed by Leigh. When modified, the guide component allows for coordination regarding the modular cabinets further allowing ease of installation and movement during installation.
In regards to Claim 2, Chu discloses
The prefabricated data center computer room [Abstract] [Figs 1-3] according to claim 1, wherein the frame body [Abstract, Fig 2] (see examiners comments) further comprises at least four pairs of support rods (1,8, Opposite ends of each frame) positioned at four corners [Fig 1] of the frame body [Abstract, Fig 2] (see examiners comments), respectively; and
one end of each [Figs 1-2] of the at least four pairs of support rods (1,8, Opposite ends of each frame) is connected to the truss structure (2) [Figs 1-2, showing connected], and other end of each [Figs 1-2] of the at least four pairs of support rods (1,8, Opposite ends of each frame) is placed on ground [Fig 1].
In regards to Claim 7, Chu discloses
The prefabricated data center computer room [Abstract] [Figs 1-3] according to claim 1, wherein the truss structure (2) [Fig 3] at least comprises two truss pieces (2) [Fig 3] [See Chu, specific implementation examples; Paragraph 2]. However, fails to discloses the two truss pieces are detachable connected to each other.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the two truss pieces of Chu to have detachable connecting mechanisms (bolts, screws, etc.) in order to detach and reattach the two separate truss pieces. Additionally, modifying it so allows for breakdown for easier shipping/transportation In general, it has been held that making separable is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522.
In regards to Claim 8, Chu discloses
The prefabricated data center computer room [Abstract] [Figs 1-3] according to claim 7, wherein a reinforcing rod (3) is arranged on each of the two truss pieces (2) [Fig 3] [See Chu, specific implementation examples; Paragraph 2] to place a cable (5) [Fig 2, “Wiring Bridge”] [Specific Implementation Example, Paragraph 8]
In regards to Claim 9, Chu discloses
The prefabricated data center computer room [Abstract] [Figs 1-3] according to claim 1, wherein the modular channel [Specific Implementation Examples, Paragraph 3] [Unnumbered, Fig 2] (see examiners comments) further comprises baffles (11) , and the plurality of baffles (11) jointly constitute sidewalls (11) of the hot channel [Specific Implementation Examples, Paragraph 3] [Unnumbered, Fig 2] (see examiners comments). However, fails to disclose a plurality of baffles are detachably connected to each of opposite sides of the two truss structures.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the truss system of Chu to be detachably connected by baffles on both sides of each truss in order to create a sealed wire channel. Additionally, in reference to Chu the wiring from the wiring frame would be exposed to the elements on more than one side. Furthermore, as it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 (E).
In regards to Claim 10, Chu discloses
The prefabricated data center computer room [Abstract] [Figs 1-3] according to claim 9, wherein ends of the two truss structures (2) [Fig 3] are connected (3) to form a channel door frame [Specific Implementation Examples, Paragraph 3] ; and
a baffle (11) is arranged on the channel door frame [Unnumbered, Fig 2], the baffle (11) being configured to cover the channel door frame [Unnumbered, Fig 2] [Covered on the back end].
20. Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen-Gang Chu (CN 215978665)(Herein Chu) and Leigh et al (US 20220244762 A1)(herein Leigh) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lu Song (CN 111472576) .
In regards to Claim 3, Chu discloses
The prefabricated data center computer room [Abstract] [Figs 1-3] according to claim 2. However, fails to discloses wherein a bottom of each of the at least four pairs of support rods is detachably connected to a support leg; and a first bolt hole site is provided on the support leg.
Furthermore, Song discloses
wherein a bottom [Fig 1, Chu] of each of the at least four pairs of support rods (1,8, Opposite ends of each frame, Chu) is detachably [Specific Implementation Examples, Paragraph 1 “one end of the support column fixedly installed on the mounting plate through the bolt”] connected to a support leg (3); and
a first bolt hole site (4) is provided on the support leg (3).
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modular data center room as disclosed by Chu to further include a bottom of each of the at least four support rods is detachably connected to a support leg; and a first bolt hole site is provided on the support leg. When modified, the support leg gives the overall frame structure an additionally, stability mechanism further providing support to the frame.
In regards to Claim 4, Chu discloses
The prefabricated data center computer room [Abstract] [Figs 1-3] according to claim 3, wherein a bottom [Fig 1] of the truss structure (2) [Fig 3] is provided with a plurality of second bolt hole sites (4, Song) configured to connect the at least four pairs of support rods (1,8, Opposite ends of each frame).
In regards to Claim 5, Chu as modified discloses
The prefabricated data center computer room [Abstract] [Figs 1-3] according to claim 4.
Leigh discloses wherein the guide component (1300) [Figs 13A-13B] at least comprises a guide base [Unnumbered, Fig 13A] (see examiners comments) and a plurality of guide rollers (1306, 1307) [Figs 13A-13B] , each of the plurality of guide rollers (1306, 1307) [Figs 13A-13B] being rotatably arranged [Fig 13B showing rotatably arranged] on the guide base [Unnumbered, Fig 13A] (see examiners comments); and
when the modular cabinet (6, Chu) [Figs 2-3] is moved within the containment area [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Chu] (see examiners comments), the guide roller (1306, 1307) [Figs 13A-13B] comes into contact [0049, Explaining coming into contact] with a sidewall [Unnumbered, Fig 3, Chu] (see examiners comments) of the modular cabinet (6, Chu) [Figs 2-3] and rotates as the modular cabinet (6, Chu) [Figs 2-3] moves to provide the friction force [0049] to the modular cabinet (6, Chu) [Figs 2-3].
In regards to Claim 6, Chu discloses
The prefabricated data center computer room [Abstract] [Figs 1-3] according to claim 5, wherein certain spacing [Fig 2, Showing Spacing] is provided between each pair of the at least four pairs of support rods (1,8, Opposite ends of each frame), two ends [Unnumbered, see examiners comments, Leigh] of the guide base [Unnumbered, Fig 13A, Leigh] (see examiners comments) being connected [as modified, Leigh] to two of the same pair of the at least four pairs of support rods (1,8, Opposite ends of each frame), respectively; and
when the sidewall [Unnumbered, Fig 3] (see examiners comments) of the modular cabinet (6) [Figs 2-3] comes into contact [as modified] with each of the plurality of guide rollers (1306, 1307, Leigh) [Figs 13A-13B], the modular cabinet (6) [Figs 2-3] moves along the guide base [Unnumbered, Fig 13A, Leigh] (see examiners comments).
Examiners comments
PNG
media_image1.png
401
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chu, Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
380
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chu, Figure 2
PNG
media_image3.png
621
627
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Leigh, Figure 13
Conclusion
21. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See PTO 892.
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKARIA K. AL-ASWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-6335. The examiner can normally be reached M through F 7:30 to 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 Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
/Z.K.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635