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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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 of this title, 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink (US 7684193 ) in view of KROEPLIEN (US 20130276679).
Regarding claim 1, Fink disclosed A physical security cage for computer server racks (abstract, see also fig 1-4) comprising: a front end panel; a rear end panel positioned in spaced longitudinal relation to the front end panel (at least fig 1 or fig 4; any pair of the panels can be front and rear end panels).
Fink lacks teaching: a first vertically movable lateral access panel extending between the front end panel and the rear end panel; a second vertically movable lateral access panel extending between the front end panel and rear end panel in spaced parallel relation to the first vertically movable lateral access panel.
KROEPLIEN teaches multiple vertically movable lateral access panel structures for a cage structure (at least fig 7, fig 9, fig 11, see also fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or at the time of the invention was made, to include this feature (multiple vertically movable lateral access panel structures) and modify to previous discussed structure (modified to all sides/walls of the cage structure and keep the materials to maintain the Fink’s design goal for heat sink purpose including heat conduct and airflow) so as to further allow more access openings for the modified structure and/or improve the efficiency of the maintenance or assembly processes.
Regarding claim 2, modified Fink further disclosed at least one computer security rack is interposed between the first vertically movable lateral access panel and the second vertically movable lateral access panel (at least Fink’s fig 1-4).
Regarding claim 3, modified Fink further disclosed the computer server rack has a first accessed face adjacent the first vertically movable lateral access panel (at least Fink’s fig 1-4 modified by KROEPLIEN’s vertically movable lateral access panel).
Regarding claim 4, modified Fink further disclosed the computer server rack has a second accessed face in opposed relation to the first access face and adjacent the second vertically movable lateral access panel (at least Fink’s fig 1-4 modified by KROEPLIEN’s vertically movable lateral access panel).
Regarding claim 5, modified Fink further disclosed there are a plurality of computer server racks interposed between the first vertically movable lateral access panel and the second vertically movable lateral access panel (at least Fink’s fig 1-4 modified by KROEPLIEN’s vertically movable lateral access panel).
Regarding claim 6, modified Fink further disclosed each of the plurality of computer server racks has a first accessed face adjacent the first vertically movable lateral access panel (at least Fink’s fig 1-4 modified by KROEPLIEN’s vertically movable lateral access panel).
Regarding claim 7, modified Fink further disclosed each of the plurality of computer server racks has a second accessed face adjacent the second vertically movable access panel (at least Fink’s fig 1-4 modified by KROEPLIEN’s vertically movable lateral access panel).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink (US 7684193 ) in view of KROEPLIEN (WO 2013142582) further in view of Examiner’s Official Notice (previous EON, now is AAPA).
Regarding claim 8, The primary art and/or the modified structure discussed in the preceding claim disclosed all the subject matter except for the first vertically movable access panel has at least one set of aligned wheels which are moveable on a vertical rail to allow the first access panel to be moved upwardly to allow access to the first accessed faces of the server racks and to then be moved downwardly to secure the server rack.
However, Examiner take official notice (EON) that the above limitations (the first vertically movable access panel has at least one set of aligned wheels which are moveable on a vertical rail to allow the first access panel to be moved upwardly to allow access to the first accessed faces of the server racks and to then be moved downwardly to secure the server rack) are well known. (Now Admitted prior art, see MPEP 2144.03)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to include this feature (the first vertically movable access panel has at least one set of aligned wheels which are moveable on a vertical rail to allow the first access panel to be moved upwardly to allow access to the first accessed faces of the server racks and to then be moved downwardly to secure the server rack) and modify to previous discussed structure. The motivation to modify the previous discussed structure with EON feature is to further improve the moving process for the modified structure.
Examiner’s note: Using aligned wheels for the sliding panels is well known in the art to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made.
Regarding claim 9, The primary art and/or the modified structure discussed in the preceding claim disclosed all the subject matter except for the second vertically movable access panel has at least one set of aligned wheels which are moveable on a vertical rail to allow the second vertically moveable access panel to be moved upwardly to allow access to the first accessed faces of the server racks and to then be moved downwardly to secure the server rack.
However, Examiner take official notice (EON) that the above limitations (the second vertically movable access panel has at least one set of aligned wheels which are moveable on a vertical rail to allow the second vertically moveable access panel to be moved upwardly to allow access to the first accessed faces of the server racks and to then be moved downwardly to secure the server rack) are well known. (Now Admitted prior art, see MPEP 2144.03)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to include this feature (the second vertically movable access panel has at least one set of aligned wheels which are moveable on a vertical rail to allow the second vertically moveable access panel to be moved upwardly to allow access to the first accessed faces of the server racks and to then be moved downwardly to secure the server rack) and modify to previous discussed structure. The motivation to modify the previous discussed structure with EON feature is to further improve the moving process for the modified structure.
Examiner’s note: Using aligned wheels for the sliding panels is well known in the art to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicants’ remarks that, “As is stated in the Collins declaration, storing computer servers which generate heat, the control of heating and cooling as well as humidity would generally be highly important. As is further stated, most persons of ordinary skill in the art of designing, manufacturing, and installing security cages for computer servers would conclude that such thermal and humidity issues would notusually be as important in most types of pallet rack storage systems or in most other types of general storage systems as is disclosed in Kroeplien. Consequently, most persons of ordinary skill in the art of designing, manufacturing, and installing security cages for computer servers would not search the prior art represented by Kroeplien to find a solution to a problem related to security cages for computer servers.” (pages 5 to the end).
Examiner’s Answer: the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that:
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, KROEPLIEN teaches multiple vertically movable lateral access panel structures for a cage structure (at least fig 7, fig 9, fig 11, see also fig 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or at the time of the invention was made, to include this feature (multiple vertically movable lateral access panel structures) and modify to previous discussed structure (modified to all sides/walls of the cage structure and keep the materials to maintain the Fink’s design goal for heat sink purpose including heat conduct and airflow) so as to further allow more access openings for the modified structure and/or improve the efficiency of the maintenance or assembly processes..
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5420. The examiner can normally be reached on PHP: M-Th: 8:30-12:30; 2:30-8:30pm.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached on 571.270.5528. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JERRY WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights