DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Carlson (US 20110100045 A1).
As to claim 1, Carlson discloses: A modular data pod (Fig. 1), comprising:
an enclosure 101 including wall members (left, right, and floor) contiguously joined to one another along at least one edge of each wall member and a data pod covering member (roof);
a plurality of computer racks 102a, 102b arranged within the enclosure to form a first volume 104a, 104b between inner surfaces of the wall members and first sides of the computer racks and a second volume 108, 106 formed of second sides (interior facing sides) of the computer racks, wherein the first volume is a hot aisle (heated by racks, see airflow direction) and the second volume is a cold aisle (cooled by 112);
a computer rack covering member (ceiling above 102, 112, floor of attic 105; clearly shown but not labeled) configured to enclose the second volume, the computer rack covering member and the data pod covering member forming a third volume 105 (attic volume) coupling the first volume to the second volume; and
an air circulator 110 (par. 0035) supported by an air circulator support structure (funnel/duct of blower 110, extending through/below floor of attic 105) forming part of the computer rack covering member, the air circulator being configured to continuously circulate air through the first, second, and third volumes by directing air into the second volume, through the plurality of computer racks from the second volume to the first volume, upwardly through the first volume, and through the third volume from the first volume back toward the air circulator (see par. 0035; see also airflow arrows).
As to claim 2, Carlson discloses: wherein the air circulator includes at least one fan (see par. 0035) configured to direct air downwardly into the second volume and through the plurality of computer racks from the second volume to the first volume (see airflow arrows).
As to claim 3, Carlson discloses: wherein the air circulator support structure is disposed generally above the second volume (see Fig. 1) and defines an upper boundary of the second volume (in combination with computer rack covering member).
As to claim 4, Carlson discloses: wherein the computer rack covering member (floor of attic 105) substantially separates the cold aisle 106 from the third volume 105 except at the air circulator support structure (blower funnel/duct).
As to claim 5, Carlson discloses:
wherein the air circulator 110 includes a plurality of fans (see par. 0035) supported by the air circulator support structure.
As to claim 6, Carlson discloses: further comprising a controller configured to control a speed of the air circulator based on a temperature within the cold aisle (see par. 0038, 0058-0060).
As to claim 7, Carlson discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to control the speed of the air circulator (par. 0038, 0063) based on the temperature within the cold aisle (par. 0038, 0058-0060) and a loading of the plurality of computer racks (temperatures of the warm air plenums 104 or near the servers 102; par. 0059).
As to claim 9, Carlson discloses:
further comprising an auxiliary enclosure (of cooling plant 222, chiller 130, cooling tower 118; see par. 0044-0046, 0050-0053, 0063) attached (at least indirectly by cooling water lines and/or power cables and/or control cables) to a side of the enclosure 101 and housing at least one of power circuitry (for pumps/valves/fans, chiller), control equipment (for pumps/valves/fans, chiller control), cable buses (for powering or controlling pumps/valves/fans/chiller), or electrical compartments (for pumps/valves/fans/electrical conductors).
As to claim 10, Carlson discloses:
wherein the enclosure 101 defines a modular data pod envelope (data center) configured to house the plurality of computer racks, the hot aisle, the cold aisle, and the air circulator.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 8 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carlson (US 20110100045 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Colter (US 6241604 B1).
As to claim 8, Carlson does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the air circulator is coupled to a variable-frequency drive configured to vary a speed of the air circulator.
However, Colter discloses:
wherein the air circulator is coupled to a variable-frequency drive configured to vary a speed of the air circulator (col. 3, lines 55-57);
in order to control the fan speed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) at the time of the invention to modify device of Carlson as suggested by Colter, e.g., providing:
wherein the air circulator is coupled to a variable-frequency drive configured to vary a speed of the air circulator;
in order to control the fan speed.
Additionally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB R CRUM whose telephone number is (571)270-7665. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached on (571) 272-3740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/JACOB R CRUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights