DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 1-18 and 29-38 are cancelled.
Claims 19-28 and 39-44 are pending.
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 negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 19-24, 28 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krietzman (US 2012/0112612), Bednarcik et al (“Bednarcik”) (US 2010/0144265) and Kruschwitz (US 3,638,359).
Re claim 19, Krietzman discloses a method of thermally segregating cool air from heated exhaust air ([0004]-[0012]; via Fig. 16 105) in a data processing equipment structure (10), the method comprising:
providing (Fig. 1 showing 10 provided) a data processing equipment structure (10) having a structural framework (12) and a plurality of panels (50, front panels of 14) secured to and at least substantially enclosing (Fig. 1) the structural framework (12), wherein the structural framework (12) defines an equipment structure footprint (of Fig. 1, of Fig. 17);
arranging (Fig. 1 showing 14 arranged) at least one electronic equipment enclosure (14 up to and including 50), a first portion (of 14) of the at least one electronic equipment enclosure (14 up to and including 50) is positioned within (Fig. 1, Fig. 17) the equipment structure footprint (Fig. 1, of Fig. 17),
whereby a gap (Fig. 16, between 102 and 50) exists between an enclosure panel (50) of the at least one electronic equipment enclosure (14 up to and including 50) and a frame member (16) of the structural framework (12); and
deploying (Fig. 16 showing 105 deployed) an edge seal (105) having a generally uniform cross-sectional shape (Fig. 16) to occupy (Fig. 16) the gap (between 102 and 50) to prevent air circulation therethrough (Fig. 16), wherein the edge seal (105) includes a base portion (102; 54/57) arranged relative to (Fig. 16) the frame member (16) of the structural framework (12) and a resilient seal portion (58; see [0096] disclosing 105 is the same as 55) extending from (Fig. 16) the base portion (102) and being deflected by (Fig. 16) the enclosure panel (50) of the at least one electronic equipment enclosure (14 up to and including 50), thereby establishing a seal (at 105) thereagainst (Fig. 16),
but fails to disclose the at least one electronic equipment enclosure in place of a removed one of the plurality of panels and a second portion is positioned outside of the equipment structure footprint, and the base portion of the edge seal as rigid.
However, Bednarcik discloses the at least one electronic equipment enclosure (71-73, 271-275) in place of a removed one ([0081]) of the plurality of panels (31) such that a first portion (of 71-73, 271-275) is positioned within ([0081]; Fig. 6A-6B) the equipment structure footprint (Fig. 6A-6B; see also above) and a second portion (Fig. 2, the exposed portions of 71-75 and 271-275) is positioned outside (Fig. 2) of the equipment structure footprint (20, 20a).
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 method of Krietzman with the at least one electronic equipment enclosure in place of a removed one of the plurality of panels such that a first portion is positioned within the equipment structure footprint and a second portion is positioned outside of the equipment structure footprint as disclosed by Bednarcik in order to provide exterior access to the electronic equipment enclosures while fluidly connecting the electronic equipment enclosures with the interior of the equipment enclosure footprint ([0081]). Doing so would further the ability to exhaust heated air while allowing entry of cool air ([0082]).
In addition, Kruschwitz discloses the base portion (1) of the edge seal (Fig. 1) as rigid (including metal insert 2; Col 3 lines 4-7).
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 method of Krietzman with the base portion of the edge seal as rigid as disclosed by Kruschwitz in order to maintain the positioning of the edge seal with respect to the frame such that the enclosure remains sealed over time.
Re claim 20, Krietzman as modified discloses the method of Claim 19, but fails to disclose wherein the rigid base portion includes a pair of side channels opening at opposite sides thereof.
However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Krietzman wherein the rigid base portion includes a pair of side channels opening at opposite sides thereof in order to connect to a panel on the other side as well. In general, it has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
Re claim 21, Krietzman as modified discloses the method of Claim 20, Kruschwitz discloses a rigid support structure is received within one of the pair of side channels (interior to 1).
Re claim 22, Krietzman as modified discloses the method of Claim 19, Kruschwitz discloses wherein the rigid base portion (1) includes a panel-receiving end channel (within 1, receiving 13).
Re claim 23, Krietzman as modified discloses the method of Claim 22, Kruschwitz discloses wherein an end (13) of a barrier panel (Fig. 2) for at least partially occupying the gap (per the above) is received within (Fig. 2) the panel-receiving end channel (within 1).
Re claim 24, Krietzman as modified discloses the method of Claim 23, Kruschwitz discloses wherein the panel-receiving end channel (within 1) includes a plurality of inwardly-oriented retention fingers (8-10, 3-4) for retaining the end (13) of the barrier panel (Fig. 2).
Re claim 28, Krietzman as modified discloses the method of Claim 19, Bednarcik discloses wherein the removed panel (31) is a wall panel (31) of the data processing equipment structure (20; [0073]).
Claim 25 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krietzman (US 2012/0112612), Bednarcik et al (“Bednarcik”) (US 2010/0144265), Kruschwitz (US 3,638,359) and Herwegh et al (“Herwegh”) (US 4,999,960).
Re claim 25, Krietzman discloses the method of Claim 19, but fails to disclose wherein the resilient seal portion is bifurcated at a distal end.
However, Herwegh discloses wherein the resilient seal portion (7, 8) is bifurcated at a distal end (right end of 1).
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 method of Krietzman wherein the resilient seal portion is bifurcated at a distal end as disclosed by Herwegh in order to provide additional flexibility and deflection, for connection or abutment to an additional sealing member, ensuring tightness (Col 3 lines 56-60).
Claim 26-27 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krietzman (US 2012/0112612), Bednarcik et al (“Bednarcik”) (US 2010/0144265), Kruschwitz (US 3,638,359) and Rae et al (“Rae”) (US 3,789,567).
Re claim 26, Krietzman discloses the method of Claim 19, but fails to disclose wherein the resilient seal portion includes convex and concave portions at a distal end.
However, Rae discloses wherein the resilient seal portion (35) includes convex and concave portions (Fig. 2) at a distal end (end of 35).
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 method of Krietzman wherein the resilient seal portion includes convex and concave portions at a distal end as disclosed by Rae in order to intermesh with additional, adjacent seal, ensuring tightness.
Re claim 27, Krietzman discloses the method of Claim 19, but fails to disclose wherein the resilient seal portion includes one or more protrusions at a distal end.
However, Rae discloses wherein the resilient seal portion (35) includes one or more protrusions (35 being a protrusion as the right side) at a distal end (end of 35).
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 method of Krietzman wherein the resilient seal portion includes one or more protrusions at a distal end as disclosed by Rae in order to intermesh with additional, adjacent seal, ensuring tightness.
Claim 39-40 and 44 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krietzman (US 2012/0112612) Bednarcik et al (“Bednarcik”) (US 2010/0144265), Kruschwitz (US 3,638,359) and Deaver (US 2009/0102140).
Re claim 39, Krietzman discloses a method of thermally segregating cool air from heated exhaust air ([0004]-[0012]; via Fig. 16 105) in a data processing equipment structure (10), the method comprising:
providing (Fig. 1 showing 10 provided) a data processing equipment structure (10) having a structural framework (12) and a plurality of panels (50, front panels of 14) secured to and at least substantially enclosing (Fig. 1) the structural framework (12), wherein the structural framework (12) defines an equipment structure footprint (of Fig. 1, of Fig. 17);
arranging (Fig. 1 showing 14 arranged) at least one electronic equipment enclosure (14 up to and including 50), a first portion (of 14) of the at least one electronic equipment enclosure (14 up to and including 50) is positioned within (Fig. 1, Fig. 17) the equipment structure footprint (Fig. 1, of Fig. 17),
whereby a gap (Fig. 16, between 102 and 50) exists between an enclosure panel (50) of the at least one electronic equipment enclosure (14 up to and including 50) and a frame member (16) of the structural framework (12); and
deploying (Fig. 16 showing 105 deployed) an edge seal (105) having a generally uniform cross-sectional shape (Fig. 16) to occupy (Fig. 16) the gap (between 102 and 50) to prevent air circulation therethrough (Fig. 16), wherein the edge seal (105) includes a base portion (102; 54/57) arranged relative to (Fig. 16) the frame member (16) of the structural framework (12) and a resilient seal portion (58; see [0096] disclosing 105 is the same as 55) extending from (Fig. 16) the base portion (102) and being deflected by (Fig. 16) the enclosure panel (50) of the at least one electronic equipment enclosure (14 up to and including 50), thereby establishing a seal (at 105) thereagainst (Fig. 16),
but fails to disclose the at least one electronic equipment enclosure in place of a removed one of the plurality of panels and a second portion is positioned outside of the equipment structure footprint, and the base portion of the edge seal as rigid, wherein the rigid base portion includes a panel-receiving end channel and a pair of side channels opening at opposite sides thereof.
However, Bednarcik discloses the at least one electronic equipment enclosure (71-73, 271-275) in place of a removed one ([0081]) of the plurality of panels (31) such that a first portion (of 71-73, 271-275) is positioned within ([0081]; Fig. 6A-6B) the equipment structure footprint (Fig. 6A-6B; see also above) and a second portion (Fig. 2, the exposed portions of 71-75 and 271-275) is positioned outside (Fig. 2) of the equipment structure footprint (20, 20a).
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 method of Krietzman with the at least one electronic equipment enclosure in place of a removed one of the plurality of panels such that a first portion is positioned within the equipment structure footprint and a second portion is positioned outside of the equipment structure footprint as disclosed by Bednarcik in order to provide exterior access to the electronic equipment enclosures while fluidly connecting the electronic equipment enclosures with the interior of the equipment enclosure footprint ([0081]). Doing so would further the ability to exhaust heated air while allowing entry of cool air ([0082]).
In addition, Kruschwitz discloses the base portion (1) of the edge seal (Fig. 1) as rigid (including metal insert 2; Col 3 lines 4-7), and including a panel-receiving end channel (within 1).
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 method of Krietzman with the base portion of the edge seal as rigid as disclosed by Kruschwitz in order to maintain the positioning of the edge seal with respect to the frame such that the enclosure remains sealed over time.
In addition, Deaver discloses wherein the rigid base portion (Fig. 2, see examiner comments) includes a panel-receiving end channel (see examiner comments) and a pair of side channels (see examiner comments) opening at opposite sides thereof (Fig. 2).
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 method of Krietzman wherein the rigid base portion includes a panel-receiving end channel and a pair of side channels opening at opposite sides thereof as disclosed by Deaver in order to provide locations for assembly with additional components, as shown by Fig. 3 of Deaver. In addition, providing channels reduces the overall weight and material used, which saves costs.
Re claim 40, Krietzman as modified discloses the method of Claim 39, Kruschwitz discloses wherein an end (13) of a barrier panel (Fig. 2) for at least partially occupying the gap (per the above) is received within (Fig. 2) the panel-receiving end channel (within 1).
Re claim 44, Krietzman as modified discloses the method of Claim 39, Bednarcik discloses wherein the removed panel (31) is a wall panel (31) of the data processing equipment structure (20; [0073]).
Claim 41 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krietzman (US 2012/0112612) Bednarcik et al (“Bednarcik”) (US 2010/0144265), Kruschwitz (US 3,638,359), Deaver (US 2009/0102140) and Herwegh et al (“Herwegh”) (US 4,999,960).
Re claim 41, Krietzman discloses the method of Claim 39, but fails to disclose wherein the resilient seal portion is bifurcated at a distal end.
However, Herwegh discloses wherein the resilient seal portion (7, 8) is bifurcated at a distal end (right end of 1).
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 method of Krietzman wherein the resilient seal portion is bifurcated at a distal end as disclosed by Herwegh in order to provide additional flexibility and deflection, for connection or abutment to an additional sealing member, ensuring tightness (Col 3 lines 56-60).
Claim 42-43 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krietzman (US 2012/0112612) Bednarcik et al (“Bednarcik”) (US 2010/0144265), Kruschwitz (US 3,638,359), Deaver (US 2009/0102140) and Rae et al (“Rae”) (US 3,789,567).
Re claim 42, Krietzman discloses the method of Claim 39, but fails to disclose wherein the resilient seal portion includes convex and concave portions at a distal end.
However, Rae discloses wherein the resilient seal portion (35) includes convex and concave portions (Fig. 2) at a distal end (end of 35).
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 method of Krietzman wherein the resilient seal portion includes convex and concave portions at a distal end as disclosed by Rae in order to intermesh with additional, adjacent seal, ensuring tightness.
Re claim 43, Krietzman discloses the method of Claim 39, but fails to disclose wherein the resilient seal portion includes one or more protrusions at a distal end.
However, Rae discloses wherein the resilient seal portion (35) includes one or more protrusions (35 being a protrusion as the right side) at a distal end (end of 35).
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 method of Krietzman wherein the resilient seal portion includes one or more protrusions at a distal end as disclosed by Rae in order to intermesh with additional, adjacent seal, ensuring tightness.
Examiner Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
455
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the modification of Krietzman with Bednarcik would effectively contradict an underlying purpose of Krietzman, thus precluding obviousness. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Krietzman discloses a hot/cold aisle containment system that utilizes a header panel assembly to prevent circulation of air above an enclosure. Applicant states that Krietzman accepts that enclosures often are not in complete alignment and addresses the inefficiency via header panels and side seal assemblies, doing so without necessitating changes to the underlying structure. Applicant continues by stating that Bednarcik teaches a modular aisle containment system with blanking panels that are removed. Applicant thus argues that Bednarcik adopts a customization approach from an entirely different perspective from Krietzman. In other words, it appears Applicant argues that because Krietzman addresses a problem in one way, and a Bednarcik another way, obviousness is precluded. This is not the applicable standard. The relevant question is what would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and not “do the cited references address problems the same way.” Applicant states that it is highly unlikely that an Ordinary Artisan would give much weight to customization via enclosure sections when Krietzman’s aim is to customize existing enclosures. Again, the relevant question is what would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Moreover, it is noted that a person of ordinary skill would indeed look to Bednarcik to modify Krietzman because both references are squarely within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, regardless of Applicant’s assertion that it would be “highly unlikely.”
Applicant’s arguments concerning the dependent claims are addressed by the above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights