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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 and 17 in the reply filed on December 22, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is in single sentence claim format. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1 and claim 17 line 1, “Fan wall” would be clearer if written as --A fan wall--.
In claim 1 line 3, “to other frame” would be clearer if written as --to an other frame--.
In claim 1 line 3, “to other fan” would be clearer if written as --to an other fan--.
In claims 2-13, line 1, “Fan wall” would be clearer if written as --The fan wall--.
In claim 3 lines 3 and 5, “said portion” would be clearer if written as --said second portion--.
In claim 3 line 5, “the said” would be clearer if written as --said--.
In claim 3 line 5, “with a maximum” would be clearer if written as --have a maximum--.
In claim 10 line 3, “in function” would be clearer if written as --as a function--.
In claim 17 line 2, “column” would be clearer if written as --columns--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2020/0229323 to Costakis in view of U. S. Patent 11,885,511 to Kent.
Referring to claim 1, Costakis teaches a fan wall module for a fan wall unit arrangement, said fan wall module comprising a frame (1506) suitable for being connected to an other frame (1506) of an other fan wall modules, said frame (1506) delimiting a space suitable for housing a wall (wall of 1506 mounted to the fan assemblies 1504) carried by the frame (1506), said fan wall module comprising a fan assembly (1504, 121), said wall dividing said space in a first portion (left side of dotted line in the annotation of Fig. 1 below) and a second portion (right side of dotted line in the annotation of Fig. 1 below), wherein said first portion (left side of dotted line in the annotation of Fig. 1 below) can be reached (via the airflow passage when the fan and heat exchanger are removed, in the same way as disclosed by the Applicant) through said second portion (right side of dotted line in the annotation of Fig. 1 below) (Figures 1, 11, 12 and 15; paragraphs [0046], [0047], [0064] and [0067]).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Second Portion)][AltContent: textbox (First Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
358
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Costakis Figure 1.
Costakis is silent as to how the fan assembly is supported and the wall being movable. Kent teaches a fan wall module comprising:
a fan assembly (6) supported by a wall, and wherein said wall is carried by a frame (15) in a movable manner (Figures 10-21, Fig. 14 annotated below; col. 4 line 20 - col. 7 line 63).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Wall)]
PNG
media_image2.png
791
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Kent Figure 14.
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the fan wall module taught by Costakis with the fan assembly support and wall taught by Kent in order to provide a modular bulkhead that can be easily and cost effectively retrofitted within a cabinet (col. 3 line 56 - col. 6 line 19).
Referring to claim 2, Costakis and Kent teach a fan wall module comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Costakis further teaches wherein:
said first portion (left side of dotted line in the annotation of Fig. 1 above) is a positive pressure portion and said second portion (right side of dotted line in the annotation of Fig. 1 above) is a negative pressure portion according to a standard operation of said fan assembly (Figures 10-21, Fig. 14 annotated above; col. 4 line 20 - col. 7 line 63).
Referring to claim 3, Costakis and Kent teach a fan wall module comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but Costakis is silent as to how the fan assembly is supported and the wall being movable. Kent further teaches a fan wall module wherein:
said wall is carried in a movable way in order to assume a plurality of positions between a first, closed, configuration, wherein a first portion (downstream side) and said second portion (upstream side) are separated by said wall that is secured to said frame (15) and a second, opened, configuration, wherein said first portion (downstream side) and said second portion (upstream side) have a maximum area passage between them (Figures 10-21, Fig. 14 annotated above; col. 4 line 20 - col. 7 line 63).
Referring to claim 4, Costakis and Kent teach a fan wall module comprising all the limitations of claim 3, as detailed above, but Costakis is silent as to how the fan assembly is supported and the wall being movable. Kent further teaches a fan wall module wherein:
said wall is positioned parallel to a longitudinal axis (into and out of the page in Fig. 15) of said fan wall module when it is in said first configuration and wherein said wall is positioned perpendicular (when fully dropped down) to said longitudinal axis when it is in said second configuration (Figures 10-21, Fig. 14 annotated above; col. 4 line 20 - col. 7 line 63).
Referring to claim 5, Costakis and Kent teach a fan wall module comprising all the limitations of claim 3, as detailed above, but Costakis is silent as to how the fan assembly is supported and the wall being movable. Kent further teaches a fan wall module comprising:
guide means (60) configured to support the wall in a sliding manner with respect to said frame (15) in order to achieve said configurations (Figures 10-21, Fig. 14 annotated above; col. 4 line 20 - col. 7 line 63).
Referring to claim 6, Costakis and Kent teach a fan wall module comprising all the limitations of claim 5, as detailed above, but Costakis is silent as to how the fan assembly is supported and the wall being movable. Kent further teaches a fan wall module wherein:
said guide means comprises an upper and a lower rails (60), said wall comprising sliding means (edge that fits into rails 60) configured to cooperate with said upper and lower rails (60) in sliding manner (Figures 10-21, Fig. 14 annotated above; col. 4 line 20 - col. 7 line 63).
Referring to claim 7, Costakis and Kent teach a fan wall module comprising all the limitations of claim 6, as detailed above, but Costakis is silent as to how the fan assembly is supported and the wall being movable. Kent further teaches a fan wall module wherein:
said wall is positioned parallel to a longitudinal axis (into and out of the page in Fig. 15) of the fan wall module when it is in the first configuration and said upper and lower rails (60) comprises a first portion parallel to said longitudinal axis and a second portion inclined with respect to said first portion (Figures 10-21, Fig. 14 annotated above, Fig. 15 annotated below; col. 4 line 20 - col. 7 line 63).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Portion)][AltContent: textbox (First Portion)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
399
770
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Kent Figure 15.
Referring to claim 8, Costakis and Kent teach a fan wall module comprising all the limitations of claim 7, as detailed above, but Costakis is silent as to how the fan assembly is supported and the wall being movable. Kent further teaches a fan wall module wherein:
said first and second portions are perpendicular (Figures 10-21, Figures 14 and 15 annotated above; col. 4 line 20 - col. 7 line 63).
Referring to claim 9, Costakis and Kent teach a fan wall module comprising all the limitations of claim 3, as detailed above, but Costakis is silent as to how the fan assembly is supported and the wall being movable. Kent further teaches a fan wall module wherein:
locking means (fasteners) configured to selectively lock said wall in one between said first and second configurations (Figures 10-21, Figures 14 and 15 annotated above; col. 4 line 20 - col. 7 line 63).
Referring to claim 17, Costakis and Kent teach a fan wall module comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Costakis further teaches a fan wall module comprising:
a plurality of fan wall modules disposed in rows and/or column, said fan wall unit arrangement comprising at least a fan wall module according to claim 1 (Figures 1, 11, 12 and 15; paragraphs [0046], [0047], [0064] and [0067]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2020/0229323 to Costakis in view of U. S. Patent 11,885,511 to Kent and U. S. Patent Publication 2013/0099715 to Fuhge.
Referring to claim 10, Costakis and Kent teach a fan wall module comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but Costakis is silent as to how the fan assembly is supported and the wall being movable, and Kent does not teach an actuator for the wall. Fuhge teaches a module comprising:
an actuator means (14) configured to automatically move a wall (12) between first and second configurations as a function of a control signal (Figures 1-4; paragraphs [0030]-[0041]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the fan wall module taught by Costakis with the actuator means taught by Fuhge in order to make the movement of the wall safer for the user, and since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2020/0229323 to Costakis in view of U. S. Patent 11,885,511 to Kent, U. S. Patent Publication2010/0188816 to Bean and U. S. Patent Publication 2018/0224027 to Muckle.
Referring to claim 11, Costakis and Kent teach a fan wall module comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but while Costakis teaches a heat exchanger (122) with the fan assembly (1504, 121) (Figures 1, 11, 12 and 15; paragraphs [0046], [0047], [0064] and [0067]), Costakis appears to show conduits in Figure 1, but is otherwise silent as to the flow of coolant to and from the heat exchangers. Kent do not teach heat exchangers. Bean teaches a fan wall module comprising:
conduits (104) for allowing the circulation of a conditioning fluid between first (inside the canopy 30) and second portions (outside the data center and canopy 30) and a main return and feeding conduits (106, 108) fluidly connected to said conduits (104) and configured to allow a partition and a collection of said conditioning fluid among different fan wall modules, said fan wall module comprising a main portion of said main feeding and return conduits (106, 108) rigidly carried by said frame (Fig. 6; paragraph [0066]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the fan wall module taught by Costakis with the conduits taught by Bean in order to provide coolant to the heat exchangers.
Bean is silent as to the structure of the conduits and therefore does not teach a connection portion. Muckle teaches a module comprising:
a connection portion (200) for connecting together a main portion to another main portion of another module, said connection portion (200) comprising a pair of terminal portions (208, 210) configured to cooperate with said main portions and an intermediate portion (202) extending between said terminal portions (208, 210), said intermediate portion (202) being realized as deformable so that, in a first configuration the terminal portions (208, 210) and said intermediate portion (202) are concentric to a longitudinal axis and in a second configuration wherein they are not concentric to said longitudinal axis (Figures 2-4; paragraphs [0060]-[0064]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the fan wall module taught by Costakis with the connection portion taught Muckle in order to allow the conduits to flex allowing for movement thereof and between the conduits.
Referring to claim 12, Costakis and Kent teach a fan wall module comprising all the limitations of claim 11, as detailed above, but while Costakis teaches a heat exchanger (122) with the fan assembly (1504, 121) (Figures 1, 11, 12 and 15; paragraphs [0046], [0047], [0064] and [0067]), Costakis appears to show conduits in Figure 1, but is otherwise silent as to the flow of coolant to and from the heat exchangers. Kent do not teach heat exchangers. Bean is silent as to the structure of the conduits and therefore does not teach a connection portion. Muckle further teaches a module wherein:
said intermediate portion (202) is realized as a bellow (Figures 2-4; paragraphs [0060]-[0064]).
Referring to claim 13, Costakis and Kent teach a fan wall module comprising all the limitations of claim 11, as detailed above, but while Costakis teaches a heat exchanger (122) with the fan assembly (1504, 121) (Figures 1, 11, 12 and 15; paragraphs [0046], [0047], [0064] and [0067]), Costakis appears to show conduits in Figure 1, but is otherwise silent as to the flow of coolant to and from the heat exchangers. Kent do not teach heat exchangers. Bean is silent as to the structure of the conduits and therefore does not teach a connection portion. Muckle further teaches a module wherein:
said connection portion (200) is cylindrical (Figures 2-4; paragraphs [0060]-[0064]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bean teaches a similar module as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN MATTHEW LETTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746