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The objections to the Drawings are withdrawn in view of the amendments to
the Claims.
Claim Objections
The objections to the Claims 1, 5-6, 8-11, 18-19, 21, 24-31, 33-36, 40, 42, 44, 52, 61 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the Claims 1, 5-6, 8-11, 18-19, 21, 24-31, 33-36, 40, 42, 44, 52, 61.
Claim objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22 recites “wherein the at least two opposed server racks are served cold air via an underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS)”, to avoid antecedent issue, the limitations should be changed to read “wherein the at least two opposed server racks are served cold air via the underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS)”, “an underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS)” was recited in Claim 11 previously.
Claim 23 recites “wherein the at least two opposed server racks are served cold air via an underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS) that is complementary to the underfloor cubic support systems (UFCSS)”, to avoid antecedent issue, the limitations should be changed to read “wherein the at least two opposed server racks are served cold air via the underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS) that is complementary to an underfloor cubic support systems (UFCSS)”, “an underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS)” was recited in Claim 11 previously.
Claim 76-78 claims to be dependent on Claim 60, Examiner notes, Claim 60 is canceled and recommends changing Claim 76-78 to be dependent on independent Claim 61 and will proceed with examination as being dependent on Claim 61.
Claim 75 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits.
Specification
Content of Specification
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
Examiner notes the “Brief description of the several views of the drawings” for Figure 17-20 are missing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent Claims 1, 11, 29, 44, 52, 61 recite a “non-plenum” “underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS)”, per Applicant’s Remarks, page 10 of 17,
“Claims 72-78 have been added. Such claims correspond to claims 53, 55, 57, 61, 63, 65 and 68, respectively, with amendments to conform the new claims to the amendments requested by the Examiner in the previously pending claims. Claims 1, 11, 44, 52 and 61 have been amended to recite that the cold air is supplied via a non-plenum underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS). These claims and also claim 29 have been amended to clarify that the underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS) is non-plenum. Support for these amendments can be found in claim 9 as originally filed and throughout the specification”
Examiner cannot find support for “non-plenum” in Claim 9 as originally filed and throughout the specification, “non-plenum” is not suggest or defined within the Specification, Examiner notes it is unclear what “non-plenum” can be considered and how “non-plenum” is defined as the term “plenum” is not defined in the Specification, Examiner is not able to define the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “non-plenum” as there is no suggestion, description or definition to what “plenum “ or “non-plenum” may be.
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 1-8, 10-31, 33-36, 40-44, 52,61 and 72-78 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.
Independent Claims 1, 11, 29, 44, 52, 61 recite a “non-plenum” “underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS)”, Examiner notes it is unclear what “non-plenum” can be considered and how “non-plenum” is defined as the term “plenum” is not defined in the Specification, Examiner is not able to define the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “non-plenum” as there is no suggestion, description or definition to what “plenum “ or “non-plenum” may be, thus the term “non-plenum” renders the Claims 1, 11, 29, 44, 52, 61 indefinite.
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 1-31, 33-36, 40-44, 52, 61 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner et al. (US 10,743,441 - hereinafter, "Gardner").
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 vertical end (bottom or top end 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 served cold air via a non-plenum (see Figure 2, underfloor server rack cooling system (209) is not within the plenum (208) ) 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%
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)
with respect to Claim 2-4, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings, 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%].
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 5, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings teaches the limitations of Claim 1 or 3 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2)
wherein the vertical end (bottom or top end of the server rack (201)) of the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201)) proximal to the cold air source (210) is a lower end (bottom end of the server rack (201)) of the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201)).
With respect to Claim 6, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings teaches the limitations of Claim 5 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2)
wherein the lower end (bottom end of the server rack (201)) of the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201)) sits on a floor (see Figure 1-2) of the server room (computing room).
With respect to Claim 7, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings teaches the limitations of Claim 1 or 3 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2)
wherein a floor (see Figure 1-2) of the server room (computing room) is a raised access floor (204).
With respect to Claim 8, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings teaches the limitations of Claim 1 or 3 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 an underfloor cubic support systems (UFCSS) (see Figure 1-2).
With respect to Claim 10, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings teaches the limitations of Claim 8 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 an underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS) (209) that is complementary 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 end (bottom or 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), 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 a non-plenum (see Figure 2, underfloor server rack cooling system (209) is not within the plenum (208) ) 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%.
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)
with respect to Claim 12-17, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings, 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%].
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 18, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings teaches the limitations of Claim 11 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2)
wherein the distal end (top end of the server rack (201)) of the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201)) distal from the cold air source (210) is an upper end (top end of the server rack (201)) of the server racks (201).
With respect to Claim 19, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings teaches the limitations of Claim 18 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2)
wherein a lower end (bottom end of the server rack (201)) of the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201)) sits on a floor (see Figure 1-2) of the server room (computing room).
With respect to Claim 20, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings teaches the limitations of Claim 11 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2)
wherein a floor (see Figure 1-2) of the server room (computing room) is a raised access floor (207).
With respect to Claim 21, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings teaches the limitations of Claim 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 an underfloor cubic support systems (UFCSS) (see Figure 1-2).
With respect to Claim 22, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings teaches the limitations of Claim 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 the underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS) (209).
With respect to Claim 23, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings teaches the limitations of Claim 22 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 via the underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS) (209) that is complementary to an underfloor cubic support systems (UFCSS) (see Figure 1-2).
With respect to Claim 24, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings 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 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 26, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings teaches the limitations of Claim 1 or 11 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2)
Wherein the server room (computing room) comprises an underfloor cubic support systems (UFCSS) (see Figure 1-2) holding an underfloor server rack cooling system (UFSRCS) (209) located such that a vertical air velocity (flow rate of air (212)) variation and direction (in column 8, lines 4-23 & in column 8, lines 42-64, “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.”) is determined by the underfloor cubic support systems (UFCSS) (see Figure 1-2).
With respect to Claim 27, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings 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 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).
With respect to Claim 29, Gardner teaches (in Figure 1-2)
A server room cooling system (in 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. 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. 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. For example, in the illustrated embodiment, floor tile 210 includes two separate sets of flow control elements 214A-B which can be independently adjusted to manage air flow through tile 210. 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”) comprising
an underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) (see Figure 1-2) containing non-plenum (see Figure 2, underfloor server rack cooling system (209) is not within the plenum (208) ) 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),
the UFCSS (see Figure 1-2) and UFSRCS (209) located under a raised access floor (RAF) (204) holding a server rack (201) within 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”),
the server room cooling system controllably and selectively (in column 8, lines 4-23 & in column 8, lines 42-64, “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”) provides a cold air (212) through an output port (210) in the RAF (204) into a cold air aisle (202) adjacent the server rack (201),
wherein the UFCSS (see Figure 1-2) and UFSRCS (209) are located to selectively and controllably (in column 8, lines 4-23 & in column 8, lines 42-64, “while flow control element 214-B may control the flow rate of air 212 through some or all of floor tile 210”) deliver the cold air (212) into the cold air aisle (202) such that an air velocity (flow rate of air (212)) decreases from the output port (210) to a vertical middle (see Figure 2, middle of the server rack (201)) of the server rack (201).
Gardner fails to specifically teach or suggest an air velocity decreases by at least about 50%.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified 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 an air velocity decreases 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)
With respect to Claim 30-31, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings teaches the limitations of Claim 29 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2) wherein the server room cooling system selectively and controllably (in column 8, lines 4-23 & in column 8, lines 42-64, “while flow control element 214-B may control the flow rate of air 212 through some or all of floor tile 210”) delivers the cold air (212) into the cold air aisle (202) such that the air velocity (flow rate of air (212)) decreases from the output port (210) to the vertical middle (middle of the server rack (201)) of the server rack (201).
Gardner fails to specifically teach or suggest the air velocity decreases by [Claim 30: at least about 54%; Claim 31: at least about 75%]
It would have been obvious to have modified the air velocity as taught by Gardner’s teachings decreases by [Claim 30: at least about 54%; Claim 31: at least about 75%], since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component or in this situation a change in 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 33-36, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings teaches the limitations of Claim 29 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2) wherein the server room cooling system selectively and controllably (in column 8, lines 4-23 & in column 8, lines 42-64, “while flow control element 214-B may control the flow rate of air 212 through some or all of floor tile 210”) delivers the cold air (212) into the cold air aisle (202) such that the air velocity (flow rate of air (212)) decreases from the vertical middle (middle of the server rack (201)) of the server rack (201) to a distal end (bottom or top of the server rack (201)) of the server rack (201).
Gardner fails to specifically teach or suggest the air velocity decreases by [Claim 33: at least about 50%; Claim 34: at least about 54%; Claim 35: at least about 62%; Claim 36: at least about 75%]
It would have been obvious to have modified the air velocity as taught by Gardner’s teachings decreases by [Claim 33: at least about 50%; Claim 34: at least about 54%; Claim 35: at least about 62%; Claim 36: at least about 75%], since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component or in this situation a change in 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 40, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings teaches the limitations of Claim 29 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2)
wherein the server rack (201) is one of at least about a pair of opposed server racks (201 and the opposing server racks (201) on the other side of the cold air aisle (202)) with the cold air aisle (202) in between the pair of opposed server racks (201 and the opposing server racks (201) on the other side of the cold air aisle (202)).
With respect to Claim 41, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings teaches the limitations of Claim 29 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2)
wherein the server room cooling system (209) lacks 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 42, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings teaches the limitations of Claim 40 or 41 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2)
wherein the pair of opposed server racks (201 and the opposing server racks (201) on the other side of the cold air aisle (202)) 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 43, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings teaches the limitations of Claim 41 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2)
wherein the server room cooling system (209) is disposed in the server room (computing room) of any one of claims 1, 11 or 29.
With respect to Claim 44, Gardner teaches (in Figure 1-2)
A cold air aisle (202) located 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”) in 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”) wherein the cold air aisle (202) contains a turbulent cold air (212) directed into the cold air aisle (202) from an outlet port (210) of a server room cooling system (in 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. 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. 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. For example, in the illustrated embodiment, floor tile 210 includes two separate sets of flow control elements 214A-B which can be independently adjusted to manage air flow through tile 210. 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 wherein the turbulent cold air (212) selectively and controllably (in column 8, lines 4-23 & in column 8, lines 42-64, “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”) decreases in velocity (flow rate of the air (212)) from the output port (210) to a vertical middle (a vertical middle of the server rack (201)) of an adjacent server rack (201), and wherein the cold air aisle (202) is served cold air (212) through the outlet port (210) via a non-plenum (see Figure 2, underfloor server rack cooling system (209) is not within the plenum (208) ) 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 the turbulent cold air decreases in velocity by at least about 30%.
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 the turbulent cold air decreases in velocity by at least about 30% as taught by Gardner’s teachings, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component or in this situation a change in turbulent cold 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 52, 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 the cold air aisle (202) comprises at least one cold air supply grate (210) located adjacent a first (one of the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201)) of the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201)), and wherein an air velocity (flow rate of air (212)) exiting the at least one cold air supply grate (210) selectively and controllably (in column 8, lines 4-23 & in column 8, lines 42-64, “while flow control element 214-B may control the flow rate of air 212 through some or all of floor tile 210”) varies across the at least one cold air supply grate (210) from a proximal side (bottom of the server rack (201)) adjacent the first of the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201)) to a distal side (top of the server rack (201)) away from the first of the at least two opposed server rack (201 and opposing server rack (201)), wherein cold air (212) is supplied through the at least one cold air supply grate (210) via a non-plenum (see Figure 2, underfloor server rack cooling system (209) is not within the plenum (208) ) 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 an air velocity varies by at least 3x.
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 an air velocity varies by at least 3x as taught by Gardner’s teachings, 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 61, Gardner teaches (in Figure 1-2)
A cold air aisle (202) located 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”) in 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”) wherein the cold air aisle (202) contains a turbulent cold air (212) directed into the cold air aisle (202) from an outlet port (outlet ports of cold air supply grate (210)) of a server room cooling system (209) and wherein an air velocity (flow rate of air (212)) exiting the outlet port (outlet ports of cold air supply grate (210)) selectively and controllably (in column 8, lines 4-23 & in column 8, lines 42-64, “while flow control element 214-B may control the flow rate of air 212 through some or all of floor tile 210”) varies across the outlet port (outlet ports of cold air supply grate (210)) from a proximal side (a side of the outlet port (outlet ports of cold air supply grate (210)) near a bottom side of the server rack (201)) of the outlet port (outlet ports of cold air supply grate (210)) adjacent a first server rack (one of the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201)) disposed within the opposed server pods (rack computing systems) to a distal side (top side of the server rack (201)) away from the first server rack (one of the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201)) disposed within the opposed server pods (rack computing systems), and wherein cold air (212) is supplied through the outlet port (outlet ports of cold air supply grate (210)) via a non-plenum (see Figure 2, underfloor server rack cooling system (209) is not within the plenum (208) ) 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 an air velocity varies by at least 3x.
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 an air velocity varies by at least 3x as taught by Gardner’s teachings, 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 72-74, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings teaches the limitations of Claim 52 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2)
wherein the air velocity (flow rate of air (212)) exiting the at least one cold air supply grate (210) selectively and controllably (in column 8, lines 4-23 & in column 8, lines 42-64, “while flow control element 214-B may control the flow rate of air 212 through some or all of floor tile 210”) varies across the at least one cold air supply grate (210) from a proximal side (bottom of the server rack (201)) adjacent the first (one of the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201))) of the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201)) to a distal side (top of the server rack (201)) away from the first (one of the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201))) of the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201)).
Gardner fails to specifically teach or suggest the air velocity varies by [Claim 72: at least 5x; Claim 73: at least 6.5x; Claim 74: at least 7.2x]
It would have been obvious to have modified the air velocity as taught by Gardner’s teachings varies by [Claim 72: at least 5x; Claim 73: at least 6.5x; Claim 74: at least 7.2x], since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component or in this situation a change in 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 76-78, Gardner as modified by Gardner’s teachings teaches the limitations of Claim 61 as per above, Gardner further teaches (in Figure 1-2)
wherein the air velocity (flow rate of air (212)) exiting the outlet port (outlet ports of cold air supply grate (210)) selectively and controllably (in column 8, lines 4-23 & in column 8, lines 42-64, “while flow control element 214-B may control the flow rate of air 212 through some or all of floor tile 210”) varies across the outlet port (outlet ports of cold air supply grate (210)) from a proximal side (a side of the outlet port (outlet ports of cold air supply grate (210)) near a bottom side of the server rack (201)) adjacent the first (one of the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201))) of the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201)) to a distal side (top of the server rack (201)) away from the first (one of the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201))) of the at least two opposed server racks (201 and opposing server rack (201)).
Gardner fails to specifically teach or suggest the air velocity varies by [Claim 76: at least 5x; Claim 77: at least 6.5x; Claim 78: at least 7.2x]
It would have been obvious to have modified the air velocity as taught by Gardner’s teachings varies by [Claim 76: at least 5x; Claim 77: at least 6.5x; Claim 78: at least 7.2x], since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component or in this situation a change in 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)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 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 12-13) 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, “selectively and controllably” adjusting the flow rate through flow control element 214B, “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.
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 13-15) The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to Applicant’s remark to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, third and fourth section
“Applicants' experiments, see Examples 1 and 2, show that prior art-style plenum HVAC systems did not achieve the minimum 50% variance in vertical air flow velocity, let alone the much larger variances in numerous claims. The office action does not provide any evidence justifying its assertion that Gardner would have achieved such 50% variance (or more) in vertical air flow velocity. This is improper.
Nevertheless, Applicants have amended the claims to add "non-plenum" to clarify that the claimed UFSRCS is a non-plenum system and to avoid any assertion that it could be confused with the plenum-only systems taught in Gardner and the other cited prior art.
There is absolutely no teaching or suggestion, etc., in Gardner to achieve at least 50% variance in vertical air flow velocity, and absolutely no teaching or suggestion, etc., in Gardner of any non-plenum underfloor system.
Thus, the rejections have been traversed for these reasons and must be withdrawn for this reason.” and
“Similar to the Third argument above, in regard to claims 52 and 61 and their reinstated/newly added dependent claims 72-78, Applicant's experiments, see Examples 1 and 2… Nevertheless, Applicants have amended the claims to add "non-plenum" to clarify that the claimed UFSRCS is a non-plenum system and to avoid any assertion that it could be confused with the plenum-only systems taught in Gardner and the other cited prior art.
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.
Thus, the rejections have been traversed for these reasons and must be withdrawn for this reason.” (Present remark page 15-17) The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to page 15-17 of Applicant’s Remarks filed February 5, 2026, Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to add “non-plenum” to clarify that the claimed UFSRCS is a non-plenum system and to avoid any assertion that it could be confused with the plenum-only systems taught in Gardner and the other cited prior art; Applicant further argues that there is absolutely no teach or suggestions, etc. in Gardner to achieve at least 50% variance in vertical air flow velocity and absolutely no teaching or suggestions, etc., in Gardner of any non-plenum underfloor system. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and as set forth above, Applicant’s amendment of adding “non-plenum” appears to recite new matter not originally disclosed in Applicant’s application. Accordingly, Applicant’s amendment to include “non-plenum” is unpersuasive and thus warrants the 112(a) and 112(b) rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 2835
/Jayprakash N Gandhi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2835