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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/13/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
The objections to the Claims 22-23, and 75-78 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the Claims 22-23, and 75-78.
Specification
The objection to the Specification is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the Specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) to the Claims 1-8, 10-31, 33-36, 40-44, 52,61 and 72-78 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the Claims 1, 11, 29, 44, 52, 61.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to the Claims 1-8, 10-31, 33-36, 40-44, 52,61 and 72-78 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the Claims 1, 11, 29, 44, 52, 61.
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 and 11 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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “a duct connection after amendments herein that transmits air below the RAF from the input port to the output port and into the cold air aisle”, it is unclear what the Applicant is trying to convey in “after amendments herein”, thus rendering Claims 1 and 11 indefinite. For the purpose of Examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a duct connection that transmits air below the RAF from the input port to the output port and into the cold air aisle”.
Drawings
The drawings (Figures 1-20, lack of clarity, Figures are blurry) are not of sufficient quality to permit examination. Accordingly, replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to this Office action. 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.
Applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS to submit new drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.81. Extensions of time may be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133). Failure to timely submit replacement drawing sheets will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
The drawings are objected to because Figure 1-20 appear to be a photograph. The Examiner is requiring a black and white line drawing instead of the photograph, photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1).
The drawings are objected to Figure 10A-10B and 15 because of the use of the solid black shadings. Solid black shading areas are not permitted. See 37 CFR 1.84(m).
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 1-4, 8, 10-17, 21, 23-25, 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner et al. (US 10,743,441 - hereinafter, "Gardner") in view of Rodriguez (US 2019/0254197 – hereinafter, “Rodriguez”).
With respect to Claim 1, Gardner teaches (in Figure 1-2)
A server room (room that houses the server racks (201)) comprising a cold air aisle (202) between at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201)), wherein a vertical air velocity (flow rate of air (212)) within the cold air aisle (202) selectively and controllably varies vertically (in column 8, lines 57-64, “Flow control element 214-A may control a direction of at least some of the air 212 supplied into cold aisle 202-A, such as towards a particular computing system 203, while flow control element 214-B may control the flow rate of air 212 through some or all of floor tile 210. In another example, each of flow control elements 214A-B can direct air 212 supplied from the plenum 208 along different axes, including perpendicular axes”) from a lower vertical end (bottom of the server rack (201)) of the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201)) proximal to a cold air source (210) to a vertical middle (middle of the server rack (201)) of the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201)) and wherein the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201)) are located atop a raised access floor (RAF) (204, see Figure 1-2) and the cold air aisle (202) is served cold air via an underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS) (209, in column 9, line 64 to column 10, line 2, “In some embodiments, remote control system 220 can control other components to complement control of floor tiles 210, including controlling airflow through plenum 208 by controlling various aspects of air handling unit 209, such as by varying a speed of air-moving unit 226, which can be a variable-speed blower”, see Figure 2).
Gardner fails to specifically teach or suggest a vertical air velocity varies by at least about 50%1 and an underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS) comprising an input port receiving air from a hot air back side of a first one of the at least two opposed server racks and an output port located within the cold air aisle with the input port and the output port connected by a duct connection that transmits air below the RAF from the input port to the output port and into the cold air aisle.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gardner with Gardner's teachings (in column 8, lines 4-23, “In some embodiments, data center 200 includes various sensors that may collect data regarding various properties of the data center environment. For example, sensors 222 may include temperature sensors that collect data indicating temperatures within computing system 203-A at air intake and exhaust points. In another example, sensors 222 may include air sensors that collect data indicating one or more of air pressure, air humidity, air velocity, air volumetric flow rate, air mass flow rate, etc. The collected environmental data can be processed, in some embodiments, to make determinations regarding the environment in various locations of the data center, including determining whether a temperature hotspot is occurring or may occur in various locations. For example, data from sensors 222 may be processed to determine if a hotspot is or may occur in or near computing system 203-A. In some embodiments, sensors 222 may be located in various locations in data center 200, including in locations external to rack computing systems, in plenum 208, in raised floor 204, or the like”), such that a vertical air velocity varies by at least about 50% as taught by Gardner, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component or in this situation a change in vertical air velocity. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). The modification would have been obvious, since doing so would mitigate hotspot in or near the server racks (in column 8, lines 4-23)
Furthermore, Examiner notes Gardner in at least column 7, line 64 to column 8, line 23, Gardner teaches “sensors 222 may include air sensors that collect data indicating one or more of air pressure, air humidity, air velocity, air volumetric flow rate, air mass flow rate, etc.” and “For example, data from sensors 222 may be processed to determine if a hotspot is or may occur in or near computing system 203-A”. Gardner further teaches in column 10, lines 9-15, “For example, remote control system 220 may respond to detection of a hotspot in computing system 203-A, based at least in part on data from sensors 222, by commanding one or more of motors 218A-B to adjust one or more flow control elements 214A-B to direct additional air 212 supplied from plenum 208 through at least floor tile 210 towards computing system 203-A to mitigate the hotspot”. Therefore, Gardner teaches it is well known in the art to identify hotspots in computing systems utilizing sensors in subsequently command one or more motors to adjust one or more flow control elements to direct air towards the computing systems to mitigate hotspots. Accordingly a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, thus it would have been “obvious to try” a vertical air velocity varies by at least about 50% as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. percentages of variations of vertical air velocity, would result in a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143 (I)(E).
With respect to the limitation requiring an underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS) comprising an input port receiving air from a hot air back side of a first one of the at least two opposed server racks and an output port located within the cold air aisle with the input port and the output port connected by a duct connection that transmits air below the RAF from the input port to the output port and into the cold air aisle.
Rodriguez, however, teaches (in Figure 2)
an underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS) (see Figure 2) comprising an input port (24) receiving air from a hot air back side (50) of a first one of at least two opposed server racks (60, see Figure 2) and an output port (22) located within a cold air aisle (40) with the input port (24) and the output port (22) connected by a duct connection (26, see Figure 2) that transmits air below a raised access floor (RAF) (20) from the input port (24) to the output port (22) and into the cold air aisle (40).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Rodriguez with Gardner, such that an underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS) comprising an input port receiving air from a hot air back side of a first one of at least two opposed server racks and an output port located within a cold air aisle with the input port and the output port connected by a duct connection that transmits air below a raised access floor (RAF) from the input port to the output port and into the cold air aisle as taught by Rodriguez since doing so would allow Gardner’s server room to have various configurations to meet the desired effect and improve efficiencies of the data center system. (in paragraph [0012])
with respect to Claim 2-4, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings as modified by Rodriguez, teaches the limitations of Claim 1 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2) wherein the vertical air velocity (flow rate of air (212)) within the cold air aisle (202) selectively and controllably varies (in column 8, lines 57-64, “Flow control element 214-A may control a direction of at least some of the air 212 supplied into cold aisle 202-A, such as towards a particular computing system 203, while flow control element 214-B may control the flow rate of air 212 through some or all of floor tile 210. In another example, each of flow control elements 214A-B can direct air 212 supplied from the plenum 208 along different axes, including perpendicular axes”)
Gardner fails to specifically teach or suggest the vertical air velocity varies by [Claim 2: at least about 54%; Claim 3: at least about 75%; Claim 4: at least about 100%]2.
It would have been obvious to have modified the vertical air velocity as taught by Gardner’s teachings to be [Claim 2: at least about 54%; Claim 3: at least about 75%; Claim 4: at least about 100%], since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component or in this situation a change in vertical air velocity. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). The modification would have been obvious, since doing so would mitigate hotspot in or near the server racks (in column 8, lines 4-23)
With respect to Claim 8, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings as modified by Rodriguez teaches the limitations of Claim 1 or 3 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2)
Wherein the raised access floor (204, see Figure 1-2) sits atop an underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) (see Figure 1-2).
With respect to Claim 10, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings as modified by Rodriguez teaches the limitations of Claim 8 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2)
wherein the underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS) (209) is complementary (see Figure 1-2, underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS) (209) and the underfloor cubic support systems (UFCSS) (see Figure 1-2) are counterparts to each other as a cooling system for the server room) to the underfloor cubic support systems (UFCSS) (see Figure 1-2).
With respect to Claim 11, Gardner teaches (in Figure 1-2)
A server room (computing room, in column 15, lines 31-44, “In some embodiments, the environment is a room where a raised floor plenum is configured to supply air to one or more regions in the room. For example, in a data center where a raised floor plenum is configured to supply cooling air to rack computing systems, the environment may include a computing room including one or more rows of rack computing systems supplied with air from one or more cold aisles, where cooling air is supplied to the cold aisles from the plenum through one or more floor tiles. In such an environment, one or more of the floor tiles may be remote-controlled floor tiles that can be independently adjusted to selectively deliver cooling air to various regions in the room, including selected computing systems, to maintain environmental conditions within certain predetermined limits”) comprising a cold air aisle (202) between at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201)), wherein a vertical air velocity (flow rate of air (212)) within the cold air aisle (202) selectively and controllably varies vertically (in column 8, lines 57-64, “Flow control element 214-A may control a direction of at least some of the air 212 supplied into cold aisle 202-A, such as towards a particular computing system 203, while flow control element 214-B may control the flow rate of air 212 through some or all of floor tile 210. In another example, each of flow control elements 214A-B can direct air 212 supplied from the plenum 208 along different axes, including perpendicular axes”) from a vertical middle (middle of the server rack (201)) of the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201)) to a distal upper end (top end of the server rack (201)) of the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201)) away from a cold air source (210), wherein a lower end of the at least two opposed server racks sits on a raised access floor (RAF) (204, see Figure 1-2) of the server room (computing room) and wherein the cold air aisle (202) is served cold air (212, in column 8, lines 46-48, “Such air 212, referred to hereinafter as “cooling air”, is supplied to the cold aisle through one or more floor tiles 210 in the raised floor 204”) through the cold air source (210) via an underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS) (209, in column 9, line 64 to column 10, line 2, “In some embodiments, remote control system 220 can control other components to complement control of floor tiles 210, including controlling airflow through plenum 208 by controlling various aspects of air handling unit 209, such as by varying a speed of air-moving unit 226, which can be a variable-speed blower”, see Figure 2).
Gardner fails to specifically teach or suggest a vertical air velocity varies by at least about 50%3 and an underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS) comprising an input port receiving air from a hot air back side of a first one of the at least two opposed server racks and an output port located within the cold air aisle with the input port and the output port connected by a duct connection that transmits air below the RAF from the input port to the output port and into the cold air aisle.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gardner with Gardner's teachings (in column 8, lines 4-23, “In some embodiments, data center 200 includes various sensors that may collect data regarding various properties of the data center environment. For example, sensors 222 may include temperature sensors that collect data indicating temperatures within computing system 203-A at air intake and exhaust points. In another example, sensors 222 may include air sensors that collect data indicating one or more of air pressure, air humidity, air velocity, air volumetric flow rate, air mass flow rate, etc. The collected environmental data can be processed, in some embodiments, to make determinations regarding the environment in various locations of the data center, including determining whether a temperature hotspot is occurring or may occur in various locations. For example, data from sensors 222 may be processed to determine if a hotspot is or may occur in or near computing system 203-A. In some embodiments, sensors 222 may be located in various locations in data center 200, including in locations external to rack computing systems, in plenum 208, in raised floor 204, or the like”), such that a vertical air velocity varies by at least about 50% as taught by Gardner, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component or in this situation a change in vertical air velocity. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). The modification would have been obvious, since doing so would mitigate hotspot in or near the server racks. (in column 8, lines 4-23)
Furthermore, Examiner notes Gardner in at least column 7, line 64 to column 8, line 23, Gardner teaches “sensors 222 may include air sensors that collect data indicating one or more of air pressure, air humidity, air velocity, air volumetric flow rate, air mass flow rate, etc.” and “For example, data from sensors 222 may be processed to determine if a hotspot is or may occur in or near computing system 203-A”. Gardner further teaches in column 10, lines 9-15, “For example, remote control system 220 may respond to detection of a hotspot in computing system 203-A, based at least in part on data from sensors 222, by commanding one or more of motors 218A-B to adjust one or more flow control elements 214A-B to direct additional air 212 supplied from plenum 208 through at least floor tile 210 towards computing system 203-A to mitigate the hotspot”. Therefore, Gardner teaches it is well known in the art to identify hotspots in computing systems utilizing sensors in subsequently command one or more motors to adjust one or more flow control elements to direct air towards the computing systems to mitigate hotspots. Accordingly a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, thus it would have been “obvious to try” a vertical air velocity varies by at least about 50% as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. percentages of variations of vertical air velocity, would result in a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143 (I)(E).
With respect to the limitation requiring an underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS) comprising an input port receiving air from a hot air back side of a first one of the at least two opposed server racks and an output port located within the cold air aisle with the input port and the output port connected by a duct connection that transmits air below the RAF from the input port to the output port and into the cold air aisle.
Rodriguez, however, teaches (in Figure 2)
an underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS) (see Figure 2) comprising an input port (24) receiving air from a hot air back side (50) of a first one of at least two opposed server racks (60, see Figure 2) and an output port (22) located within a cold air aisle (40) with the input port (24) and the output port (22) connected by a duct connection (26, see Figure 2) that transmits air below a raised access floor (RAF) (20) from the input port (24) to the output port (22) and into the cold air aisle (40).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Rodriguez with Gardner, such that an underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS) comprising an input port receiving air from a hot air back side of a first one of at least two opposed server racks and an output port located within a cold air aisle with the input port and the output port connected by a duct connection that transmits air below a raised access floor (RAF) from the input port to the output port and into the cold air aisle as taught by Rodriguez since doing so would allow Gardner’s server room to have various configurations to meet the desired effect and improve efficiencies of the data center system. (in paragraph [0012])
with respect to Claim 12-17, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings as modified by Rodriguez teaches the limitations of Claim 11 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2) wherein the vertical air velocity (flow rate of air (212)) within the cold air aisle (202) selectively and controllably varies (in column 8, lines 57-64, “Flow control element 214-A may control a direction of at least some of the air 212 supplied into cold aisle 202-A, such as towards a particular computing system 203, while flow control element 214-B may control the flow rate of air 212 through some or all of floor tile 210. In another example, each of flow control elements 214A-B can direct air 212 supplied from the plenum 208 along different axes, including perpendicular axes”)
Gardner fails to specifically teach or suggest the vertical air velocity varies by [Claim 12: at least about 54%; Claim 13: at least about 62%; Claim 14: at least about 75%; Claim 15: at least about 100%; Claim 16: at least about 200%; Claim 17: at least about 250%]4.
It would have been obvious to have modified the vertical air velocity as taught by Gardner’s teachings varies by [Claim 12: at least about 54%; Claim 13: at least about 62%; Claim 14: at least about 75%; Claim 15: at least about 100%; Claim 16: at least about 200%; Claim 17: at least about 250%], since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component or in this situation a change in vertical air velocity. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). The modification would have been obvious, since doing so would mitigate hotspot in or near the server racks (in column 8, lines 4-23)
With respect to Claim 21, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings as modified by Rodriguez teaches the limitations of Claim 11 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2)
wherein the raised access floor (204, see Figure 1-2) sits atop an underfloor cubic support systems (UFCSS) (see Figure 1-2).
With respect to Claim 23, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings as modified by Rodriguez teaches the limitations of Claim 21 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2)
wherein the underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS) (209) that is complementary (see Figure 1-2, underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS) (209) and the underfloor cubic support systems (UFCSS) (see Figure 1-2) are counterparts to each other as a cooling system for the server room) to the underfloor cubic support systems (UFCSS) (see Figure 1-2).
With respect to Claim 24, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings as modified by Rodriguez teaches the limitations of Claim 1 or 11 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2)
wherein the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201)) are served cold air (212) via a cold air delivery system lacking louvers (in column 9, lines 1-4, “In some embodiments, one or more of flow control elements 214A-B include one or more flat plates that are slidingly adjustable to direct air flow”).
With respect to Claim 25, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings as modified by Rodriguez teaches the limitations of Claim 1 or 11 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2)
wherein the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201)) are served cold air (212) without the cold air (212) passing through louvers (in column 9, lines 1-4, “In some embodiments, one or more of flow control elements 214A-B include one or more flat plates that are slidingly adjustable to direct air flow”).
With respect to Claim 27, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings as modified by Rodriguez teaches the limitations of Claim 1 or 11 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2)
wherein the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201)) are located across the cold air aisle (202) between opposed server pods (rack computing systems, in column 15, lines 33-44, “in a data center where a raised floor plenum is configured to supply cooling air to rack computing systems, the environment may include a computing room including one or more rows of rack computing systems supplied with air from one or more cold aisles, where cooling air is supplied to the cold aisles from the plenum through one or more floor tiles. In such an environment, one or more of the floor tiles may be remote-controlled floor tiles that can be independently adjusted to selectively deliver cooling air to various regions in the room, including selected computing systems, to maintain environmental conditions within certain predetermined limits”).
With respect to Claim 28, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings as modified by Rodriguez teaches the limitations of Claim 27 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2)
wherein the server room (computing room) comprises a plurality of cold air aisles (202-A) between the opposed server pods (rack computing systems, in column 15, lines 33-44), wherein the server room (computing room) further comprises hot air aisles (202-B) between the backs of the opposed server pods (rack computing systems).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s remark to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, first section
“The office action, page 10, properly notes that "Gardner fails to specifically teach or suggest a vertical air velocity varies by at least about 50%" (bold in original text).
This admission on its own demonstrates that the rejections on the basis of Gardner fail and must be withdrawn. More specifically, the office action admits that Gardner not only fails to teach the currently claimed selected and controlled air velocity variations within the cold air aisle (let alone the significantly higher selected and controlled air velocity variations in other claims), but Gardner fails to even suggest the claimed subject matter.
Further, there is no motivation to achieve a specific selected and controlled air velocity variation in the cold air aisle in Gardner because it contains nothing suggesting any such thing. Gardner does talk about air flow volumes and rates, but contains nothing about specific air flow turbulence nor vertical or horizontal rates of change within a cold air aisle - indeed, Gardner even suggests putting a fan in the aisle or removing a tile to achieve increased air flow volume but not for specified air flow variance:
The operator may implement additional mitigation functions to mitigate the [environmental] anomaly. For example, in a data center environment, where configuration of a mobile soft duct system fails to mitigate a hotspot, an operator may be informed of the hotspot so that additional mitigation steps can be taken, such as introducing a fan apparatus near the rack computing system experiencing the hotspot to deliver additional air, removing a floor tile to deliver additional air, and the like. Id. at Col. 18, 11. 50-58.
There is no suggestion (or teaching or suggestion motivation) in Gardner, however, to implement the specified selected, controlled heightened vertical air or horizontal velocity changes within the cold air aisle that is currently claimed.
Thus, there is absolutely nothing in Gardner about the currently claimed "vertical air velocity within the cold air aisle [that] selectively and controllably varies vertically ... [by at least 50%]" as in claim 1 nor the other variances in other claims…” (Present remark page 9-10) The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner notes Gardner does teach "vertical air velocity within the cold air aisle [that] selectively and controllably varies vertically ... [by at least 50%]" and note the section starting at Column 8, line 42 to column 10, line 25 and notes the section is lengthy and for the purposes of brevity will not insert the section in the response, but directs Applicant to the section and in view of Figure 2 and Examiner will cite specific sections from Gardner to support Gardner’s teaching of "vertical air velocity within the cold air aisle [that] selectively and controllably varies vertically ... [by at least 50%]", within column 8, lines 42-64, “Data center 200 includes a raised floor plenum 208, formed between a raised floor 204 and a lower floor 206, that distributes air supplied by an air handling system 209 through the data center 200 to be supplied to the rack computing system 201 for cooling… In some embodiments, one or more floor tiles 210 in the raised floor include one or more flow control elements that can direct the flow of air 212 supplied from plenum 208 through at least a portion of floor tile 210 to one or more particular directions, locations within data center 200, or the like… Flow control element 214-A may control a direction of at least some of the air 212 supplied into cold aisle 202-A, such as towards a particular computing system 203, while flow control element 214-B may control the flow rate of air 212 through some or all of floor tile 210. In another example, each of flow control elements 214A-B can direct air 212 supplied from the plenum 208 along different axes, including perpendicular axes.”, and in column 9, lines 5-20, “In some embodiments, a floor tile may include a top surface cover that protects flow control elements from damage. For example, floor tile 210 includes a cover 228 above the flow control elements 214A-B. In some embodiments, the cover is configured to cooperate with one or more flow control elements 214A-B to direct the flow of air 212 out of the floor tile 210… In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 2, for example, flow control element 214-B includes multiple flat sliding louvers that slide under multiple fixed beams 223 to adjust the flow rate of air through the flow control elements 214-B”, and in column 9, lines 52 to column 10, line 2, “In some embodiments, one or more floor tiles are remote-controlled floor tiles 210 that are controllable by a remote control system 220 that can command various adjustments to flow control elements 214A-B in one or more floor tiles 210 by sending independent commands to various motors 218A-B… In some embodiments, remote control system 220 can control other components to complement control of floor tiles 210, including controlling airflow through plenum 208 by controlling various aspects of air handling unit 209, such as by varying a speed of air-moving unit 226, which can be a variable-speed blower”, and in column 10, lines 3-15 “In some embodiments, remote control system 220 can adjust one or more flow control elements 214A-B in one or more floor tiles 210, air handling unit 209, and the like based upon environmental data from one or more sensors 222… For example, remote control system 220 may respond to detection of a hotspot in computing system 203-A, based at least in part on data from sensors 222, by commanding one or more of motors 218A-B to adjust one or more flow control elements 214A-B to direct additional air 212 supplied from plenum 208 through at least floor tile 210 towards computing system 203-A to mitigate the hotspot”, and in column 10, lines 16-25, “For example, where vent 230 includes one or more flow control elements, remote control system 220 may adjust such flow control elements to one or more various configurations to adjust airflow through the vent 230, upstream of the exhaust vent 230 in the hot aisle 202-B, in the rack computing system 201, in the cold aisle 202-A, in the plenum 208, or the like”, Gardner teaches that the airflow can be controlled through many aspect and through multiple components from “selectively and controllably” adjusting the direction of flow through flow control element 214A, thus “selectively and controllably varies vertically”, “selectively and controllably” adjusting the flow rate through flow control element 214B, thus the air flow and air velocity is “selectively and controllably varies vertically”, “selectively and controllably” controlling various aspects of the air handling unit 209, such as varying a speed of the air-moving unit 226 and “selectively and controllably” adjust airflow through the vent 230, thus “selectively and controllably varies vertically” the air flow and air velocity.
With respect to Applicant’s remark to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, second section
“The office action, at 10-11, then seeks to justify its assertion that a skilled artisan could use Gardner to achieve the claimed "vertical air velocity within the cold air aisle [that] selectively and controllably varies vertically ...[by at least 50%]":…
Assuming for sake of argument that a skilled artisan might be able to use Gardner to achieve the claimed subject matter, the mere statement that the claimed subject matter is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art is not sufficient by itself to establish prima facie obviousness:… ”
Indeed, the assertions in the office action essentially use the current claims and hindsight to assert obviousness. As stated in the post-KSR opinion, Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphases added), this is improper:…
Thus, the rejections have been traversed for these reasons and must be withdrawn for this reason.” (Present remark page 10-13) The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that "Assuming for sake of argument that a skilled artisan might be able to use Gardner to achieve the claimed subject matter, the mere statement that the claimed subject matter is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art is not sufficient by itself to establish prima facie obviousness:", the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
With respect to Applicant’s remark to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, third section. (Present remark page 13) The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes Gardner in at least column 7, line 64 to column 8, line 23, Gardner teaches “sensors 222 may include air sensors that collect data indicating one or more of air pressure, air humidity, air velocity, air volumetric flow rate, air mass flow rate, etc.” and “For example, data from sensors 222 may be processed to determine if a hotspot is or may occur in or near computing system 203-A”. Gardner further teaches in column 10, lines 9-15, “For example, remote control system 220 may respond to detection of a hotspot in computing system 203-A, based at least in part on data from sensors 222, by commanding one or more of motors 218A-B to adjust one or more flow control elements 214A-B to direct additional air 212 supplied from plenum 208 through at least floor tile 210 towards computing system 203-A to mitigate the hotspot”. Therefore, Gardner teaches it is well known in the art to identify hotspots in computing systems utilizing sensors in subsequently command one or more motors to adjust one or more flow control elements to direct air towards the computing systems to mitigate hotspots. Accordingly a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, thus it would have been “obvious to try” a vertical air velocity varies by at least about 50% as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. percentages of variations of vertical air velocity, would result in a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143 (I)(E).
With respect to Applicant’s remark to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, fourth section (Present remark page 14)
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments “The office action does not provide any evidence justifying its assertion that Gardner would have achieved such 50% variance in vertical air flow velocity”, the Examiner would refer to the response in Applicant’s remark to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, third section.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments “particularly where Gardner is a plenum system that would not appear to have any ability to produce the claimed 3x or more variance across the cold air supply grate or outlet port. As above, this is improper” and “There is absolutely no teaching or suggestion, etc., in Gardner to achieve at 3x across the cold air supply grate from one side to the other in air flow velocity, and absolutely no teaching or suggestion, etc., in Gardner of any non-plenum underfloor system”, Applicant’s arguments are directed to the claims as amended, Applicant’s Claims do not currently recite “3x or more variance across the cold air supply grate or outlet port” or “3x across the cold air supply grate from one side to the other in air flow velocity” or “non-plenum”. Applicant’s arguments are moot since the claims have been amended.
With respect to Applicant’s remark to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, new comment section (Present remark page 15)
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, Examiner notes response to argument in the second section has been revised. (see response per above)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9,091,496 to Imwalle et al., which teaches a data center cooling system includes a data center having electronic equipment that is supported in multiple racks; a cooling fluid source; multiple cooling units in the data center, where each cooling unit is configured to cool air warmed by a sub-set of the electronic equipment in the data center; multiple control valves, including a control valve associated with a particular cooling unit of the cooling units; and a controller arranged to modulate the control valve associated with a particular cooling unit, to open or close the control valve to substantially maintain an approach temperature set point of the particular cooling unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Ngo whose telephone number is (571)272-4295. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM - 4:00PM EST.
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 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.
/S.N./Examiner , Art Unit 2841
/Jayprakash N Gandhi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
1 In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997) & Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) & In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)
2 In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997) & Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) & In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)
3 In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997) & Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) & In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)
4 In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997) & Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) & In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)
Prosecution Insights