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 .
The claims received 3/31/2025 are entered. Claims 11-18 are new.
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.
Claims 1-18 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.
Claim 1 recites that a first baffle is “configured to prevent hot air from entering an area between the box bodies” however as disclosed air outlet 102 discharges hot air into the area between box bodies (shown in figure 1). Further relatively hot ambient air may simply enter the space over the top of baffle 11, for example as configured in figure 3. Because hot air is not prevented from entering the area between the box bodies, and is actively discharged to said space, the meaning of the limitation within the claim is not clear.
Claim 1 further recites that the first baffle “surrounds an outer periphery of the at least two box bodies” however as is shown throughout the figures at least an end wall portion of the box bodies are not surrounded. Thus the scope is unclear.
Claim 1 further recites the second baffle “is configured to prevent the hot air from impacting the box bodies” this limitation is unclear. The scope of the term “impacting” as used is not clear. As was discussed above in the preceding limitation, the hot air of the box bodies is discharged, via outlet 102, to the space between the box bodies. Moreover the ambient air may be regarded as relatively hot and the second baffle does not preclude interaction with ambient air.
Still further in regard to claim 1, it is not clear what is regarded as hot air. For example hot air could refer to some particular temperature threshold, air that is discharged after being heated by components within the container module, or air heated by some other means, e.g. environmental load, sun.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 7-10, and 16-18 is/are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaba (US 10,078,353) in view of Zhang et al (CN218388450; reference provided by applicant 10/23/2025, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Klaba discloses a container module, comprising:
at least two box bodies (1), wherein the at least two box bodies are provided at intervals, an air inlet (2) and an air outlet (3) are respectively provided at two opposite sides of the box body, and the air outlets of two adjacent box bodies are provided opposite each other;
a first baffle, wherein the first baffle surrounds outer periphery of the at least two box bodies, and is configured to prevent hot air from entering an area between the box bodies (as the first baffle partially surrounds the box bodies there is some resistance to the flow of outside air into the area between the box bodies).
PNG
media_image1.png
655
853
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Klaba lacks a second baffle as is best understood. Zhang discloses a container module including a second baffle (5), wherein the second baffle is provided at a top of the box body, and is configured to prevent the hot air from impacting the box body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Klaba with second baffle, which is a solar roof, as taught by Zhang in order to achieve an additional power source and to reduce direct sun load heating onto the box body.
Regarding claim 7, Klaba discloses a distance between the air outlets of two adjacent box bodies is larger than or equal to 6 meters (Klaba discloses the containers are defined as “a conventional metal enclosure, parallelepiped in shape, for transporting merchandise” standard shipping containers are 20 or 40 feet in length and thus the space between is greater than 6 meters).
Regarding claim 8, Klaba further discloses the container module comprises four box bodies, and the four box bodies are provided at intervals along a transverse direction and a longitudinal direction (four container modules shown in figure 3, transverse and longitudinal directions are orthogonal to each other, claim otherwise does not define directions).
Regarding claim 9, Klaba and Zhang disclose the second baffle is a photovoltaic panel (52 of Zhang).
Regarding claim 10, Klaba as modified discloses the container modules of claim 1, but does not provide a container system. It has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04. Therefor it would have been obvious to have provided a plurality of container modules in order to predictably increase data center capacity.
Regarding claim 16, Klaba discloses a distance between the air outlets of two adjacent box bodies is larger than or equal to 6 meters (Klaba discloses the containers are defined as “a conventional metal enclosure, parallelepiped in shape, for transporting merchandise” standard shipping containers are 20 or 40 feet in length and thus the space between is greater than 6 meters).
Regarding claim 17, Klaba further discloses the container module comprises four box bodies, and the four box bodies are provided at intervals along a transverse direction and a longitudinal direction (four container modules shown in figure 3, transverse and longitudinal directions are orthogonal to each other, claim otherwise does not define directions).
Regarding claim 18, Klaba and Zhang disclose the second baffle is a photovoltaic panel (52 of Zhang).
Claim(s) 2-6 and 11-15 is/are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaba (US 10,078,353), in view of Zhang et al (CN218388450; reference provided by applicant 10/23/2025, machine translation attached), and in further view of Spitzka (US 2,387,473)
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Klaba, as modified, discloses the container module according to claim 1, but lacks a water curtain. Though Klaba does note the use of water based cooling (3:65-4:3). Spitzka discloses a a water curtain structure (13), and the water curtain structure faces an air inlet of the box body (18), and is configured to reduce an air intake temperature of the box body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Klaba with a water curtain as taught by Spitzka in order to reduce air temperature and thereby enhance cooling.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Klaba and Spitzka further disclose wherein the water curtain structure is provided at a side of the first baffle away from the box body, and there is a distance between the water curtain structure and the first baffle (distance provided for space of additional components shown in figure of Spitzka between water curtain 13 and outlet/inlet to box body at 18).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 13-14, Klaba and Spitzka disclose the container module according to claim 3, but are silent concerning a value for the distance and height. However, it has been held that "A difference of degree is not as persuasive as a difference in kind – i.e., if the range produces ‘a new property dissimilar to the known property,’ rather than producing a predictable result but to an unexpected extent." MPEP 2144.05 III.A. here as the space is occupied by at least several filters and a blower as taught by Spitzka it follows to provide a distance of 0.1 or 1 meter or more in order to provide sufficient space for those elements. Similarly it has been held that the optimization of a result-effective variable is obvious. In this instance the height of the water curtain corresponds to its overall size and area. Therefor because height is recognized as effecting the result of area for evaporation; the value of extension to the second baffle is not a product of innovation but of ordinary skill and is obvious.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Klaba and Spitzka further disclose the container module comprises a dustproof structure (30 and 31 of Spitzka), and the dustproof structure is provided between the water curtain structure and the first baffle, and is configured to prevent dust from entering an interior of the box body through the air inlet of the box body.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner also notes that while the disclosure is directed to data center containers, the claims do not include any reference to data center containers.
Azadani et al (US 12,432,889) evaporatively cooled servers
Paigo et al (US 12,342,493) server containers within enclosure
Yu et al (US 10,455,742) evaporatively cooled servers
Towner et al (US 9,439,329) inflatable enclosure for data center
Yang (US 8,737,072) water curtain for container data center
Cerami (US 2022/0126146) water curtain for fire protection of structures
Chang (US 2012/0067552) evaporatively cooled server container
Park et al (US 2016/0047161) water curtain for fire protection of door opening
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights