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 .
Drawings
The drawings of 10/10/2024 are objected. Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 10, 14, and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2017/060327 to Salla (cited on IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Salla discloses: An equipment rack arrangement (abstract; page 2, line 10 to page 3, line 10; page 3, lines 15-21; page 5, line 16 to page 6, line 27; figures 1-4), comprising:
- a first row of equipment racks (abstract; page 2, line 10 to page 3, line 10; page 3, lines 15-21; page 5, line 16 to page 6, line 2 7 ["row of side by side placed racks", "row of several
racks"]; figures 1-4 [10, 10', 10", l0"']); and
- at least one horizontal busbar extending horizontally through the equipment racks of the first row of equipment racks, the at least one horizontal busbar being configured to provide power to electronic equipment supported by the equipment racks of the first row of equipment racks (abstract; page 3, lines 6-7; page 5, line 16 to page 6, line 27 ["The power distribution module can [be] installed horizontally in a rack, and extending from one side of the rack to the other side of the rack"]; figures 1-4 [ 12, 12', 12'', 12''', 16, 16', 16'', 16'''])".
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Salla discloses at least one vertical busbar extending vertically through equipment racks of the first row of equipment racks (page 4, lines 12-15; page 6, lines 24-27).
Regarding claims 3, 4, 16, and 17, Salla discloses that the first row of equipment racks ( see racks [10, 10', 10", 10"']) includes at least one first power converter cabinet (see [10] having UPS [20]) and at least two first IT generic equipment racks (see racks [(10', 10", 10"']).
Examiner’s Note: regarding method claims 14-17, since there are no specific method steps being claimed, but just a general process of installing/assembling of the device, wherein the claims essentially repeat the structure of the claimed device, the fact that the structure of the device of the present invention is anticipated by Salla means that the general method for installing such a structure is also anticipated by the same reference. The method steps recited in the claims are inherently necessitated by the structure of the Salla’s device.
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.
Claims 11, 12, 23, and 24, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salla in view of US 7, 534, 167 to Day.
Regarding claims 11 and 23, Salla does not disclose at least one fan configured to move the relatively cold air through fronts of the equipment racks of the first row of equipment racks and to move relatively hot air through tops of the equipment racks of the first row of equipment racks.
Day discloses a data center cooling arrangement (Fig. 1), wherein at least one fan (15) configured to move the relatively cold air (at 24º C) through fronts of the equipment racks (11) of the row of equipment racks (11) and to move relatively hot air (at 35º C) through tops of the equipment racks (11) of the row of equipment racks (11) in order to augment air flow and provide redundancy (col. 5, ll. 21-30).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to Salla according to the teachings of Day by providing at least one fan configured to move the relatively cold air through fronts of the equipment racks of the first row of equipment racks and to move relatively hot air through tops of the equipment racks of the first row of equipment racks, in order to predictably augment cooling air flow (Day, col. 5, ll. 21-30). Also, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 12 and 24, Salla does not disclose a liquid cooling system configured to provide liquid cooling to the electronic equipment supported by the equipment racks of the first row of equipment racks.
Day discloses (Fig. 1) a liquid cooling system (17) configured to provide liquid cooling to the electronic equipment supported by the equipment racks (11) of the row of equipment racks (see not labeled pipes for liquid coolant attached to the heat exchanger coil (17)).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to Salla according to the teachings of Day by providing a liquid cooling system configured to provide liquid cooling to the electronic equipment supported by the equipment racks of the first row of equipment racks, in order to predictably augment cooling by efficiently reduce temperature of the cooling air flow. Also, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Examiner’s Note: regarding method claims 23 and 24, since there are no specific method steps being claimed, but just a general process of installing/assembling of the device, wherein the claims essentially repeat the structure of the claimed device, the fact that the structure of the device of the present invention is obvious over Salla in view of Day, means that the general method for installing such a structure is also obvious over the same references. The method steps recited in the claims are inherently/obviously necessitated by the structure of the Salla-Day combination.
Claims 13 and 25, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salla in view of US 2013/0286575 to Chen.
Regarding claims 13 and 25, Salla does not disclose a partition to electrically isolate the at least one horizontal busbar.
Chen discloses (Fig. 1, 2) a partition (24, 26, 28) to electrically isolate the at least one horizontal busbar/wire (26).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to Salla according to the teachings of Chen by providing a partition to electrically isolate the at least one horizontal busbar, in order to predictably enhance safety and reliability of the installation. 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Examiner’s Note: regarding the method claims 25, since there are no specific method steps being claimed, but just a general process of installing/assembling of the device, wherein the claims essentially repeat the structure of the claimed device, the fact that the structure of the device of the present invention is obvious over Salla in view of Chen, means that the general method for installing such a structure is also obvious the same references. The method steps recited in the claims are inherently/obviously necessitated by the structure of the Salla-Chen combination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 and 18-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 5-10, the limitations of claim 5 (“a second row of equipment racks positioned next to the first row of equipment racks, the at least one horizontal busbar extending horizontally through the equipment racks of the second row of equipment racks, the at least one horizontal busbar being configured to provide power to electronic equipment supported by the equipment racks of the second row of equipment racks”) in combination of the parent claim 1, are believed to render the combined subject matter and claims 6-10 dependent therefrom allowable over the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination.
Regarding claims 18-22, the limitations of claim 18 (“installing a second row of equipment racks next to the first row of equipment racks, the at least one horizontal busbar extending horizontally through the equipment racks of the second row of equipment racks, the at least one horizontal busbar being configured to provide power to electronic equipment supported by the equipment racks of the second row of equipment racks”) in combination of the parent claim 14, are believed to render the combined subject matter and claims 19-22 dependent therefrom allowable over the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination.
Conclusion
The additional prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, because of the teachings of various cooling arrangements for data centers employing equipment racks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 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 N. Gandhi can be reached at 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 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights