DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3, 5, 9-15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacLaren et al. (US 6,517,375) in view of Chiu et al. (US 9,653,830).
Regarding claim 1, MacLaren discloses a peripheral component interconnect card, comprising: a first circuit board (58) comprising an edge connector (62); and a second circuit board (40) electrically connected with the first circuit board and angled transverse to the first circuit board, the second circuit board comprising a dual in-line memory module (DIMM) socket (38) oriented horizontally relative to the first circuit board (i.e. at least part of the socket extends horizontally relative to at least a part of the first circuit board).
MacLaren does not specify the type of card edge connector. Chiu teaches the card (110) with a connector (116) that can use a number of connection protocols, including PCIe. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the first card with a PCIe connector, as taught by Chiu, in order to provide a reliable high speed connection.
Regarding claim 2, Chiu teaches the PCle card being a single-slot PCle card (116, see 210).
Regarding claim 3, MacLaren discloses the second circuit board (40) comprising three or more DIMM sockets (38, Fig. 3), oriented horizontally relative to the first circuit board (i.e. at least part of the socket extends horizontally relative to at least a part of the first circuit board), and meeting a single-slot PCle primary side height requirement while a memory module (30) is inserted in each DIMM socket (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, MacLaren discloses the second circuit board comprising four DIMM sockets (38, Fig. 3), oriented horizontally relative to the first circuit board (i.e. at least part of the socket extends horizontally relative to at least a part of the first circuit board), and meeting a single-slot PCle primary side height requirement while a memory module (30) is inserted in each DIMM socket (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, MacLaren discloses a mechanical retainer (56) configured to secure the second circuit board to the first circuit board.
Regarding claim 10, MacLaren discloses the mechanical retainer maintaining an angle of 90 degrees ± 15 degrees between the first circuit board and the second circuit board (90 degrees, shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, MacLaren discloses a single-slot peripheral component interconnect card, comprising: a first circuit board (58) comprising a card edge connector (62); and a second circuit board (40) electrically connected with the first circuit board and comprising three or more dual in-line memory module (DIMM) sockets (38) oriented horizontally relative to the first circuit board (i.e. at least part of the socket extends horizontally relative to at least a part of the first circuit board).
MacLaren does not specify the type of card edge connector. Chiu teaches the card (110) with a connector (116) that can use a number of connection protocols, including PCIe. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the first card with a PCIe connector, as taught by Chiu, in order to provide a reliable high speed connection.
Regarding claim 12, MacLaren discloses the second circuit board angled relative to the first circuit board (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, MacLaren discloses the second circuit board angled transverse to the first circuit board (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, MacLaren discloses a flexible electrical connection (resilient terminals inside cartridge connector 56) between the first circuit board and the second circuit board.
Regarding claim 15, MacLaren discloses the flexible electrical connection comprises a plurality of memory channels supporting the three or more DIMM sockets on the second circuit board.
Regarding claim 17, MacLaren discloses a computer peripheral card, comprising: a first circuit board (58); a second circuit board (40) angled transverse to the first circuit board, the second circuit board comprising a memory module connector (38) oriented horizontally relative to the first circuit board (i.e. at least part of the socket extends horizontally relative to at least a part of the first circuit board); and a flexible electrical connection between the first circuit board and the second circuit board.
Regarding claim 18, MacLaren discloses the memory module connector being a dual in-line memory module (DIMM) socket (38).
Regarding claim 20, Chiu teaches the card (110) with a connector (116) that can use a number of connection protocols, including PCIe. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the first card with a PCIe connector, as taught by Chiu, in order to provide a reliable high speed connection.
Claims 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacLaren and Chiu, and further in view of Wright et al. (US 7,768,280).
Regarding claim 4, Wright teaches at least one of the three or more sockets (84) disposed on a first major surface of the second circuit board; and at least one of the three or more sockets (86) disposed on a second major surface of the second circuit board opposite the first major surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form DIMM sockets on both major surfaces of the circuit board, as taught by Wright, in order to
Regarding claim 6, Wright teaches the use of a flexible cable (88) connecting the first circuit board (90) and the second circuit board (92). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a flexible cable connecting the circuit boards, as taught by Wright, in order to provide an effective and lower profile connection.
Regarding claim 7, MacLaren, as modified by Wright, discloses the flexible cable comprising a plurality of memory channels (individual lines) supporting a plurality of DIMM sockets on the second circuit board (intended use).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as applied.
Please note that the claim language does not define the orientation along which the circuit board extends. The claim language also lacks any description as to what part or surface of the circuit board or the socket the horizontal orientation is taken from.
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 FELIX O FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-2003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at (571)727-2009. 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.
/FELIX O FIGUEROA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833
Prosecution Insights