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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed October 14, 2025 have been entered. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every claim objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Action mailed July 15, 2025. Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-12 remain pending but stand rejected for the reasons detailed below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the second attachment feature being positioned on a top plate of the device bay” in claims 1 and 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 25-26, “a second attachment feature” should read --a second backplane attachment feature-- to avoid improper antecedent basis.
In claim 1, lines 26-27, “with second attachment feature” should read --with a second attachment feature--.
In claim 7, lines 30-31, “a second attachment feature” should read --a second backplane attachment feature-- to avoid improper antecedent basis.
In claim 7, lines 31-32, “with second attachment feature” should read --with a second attachment feature--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US Publication No. 2022/0272860) in view of Zhai (US Patent No. 10064305) and Lai (US Publication No. 2009/0109609).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a configurable bay device mounting system, comprising: a device bay (rack 11), the device bay (11) being defined by a first side wall (first sidewall of 11), a second side wall (second sidewall of 11), a top plate (top plate of 11) and a bottom plate (bottom plate of 11), the device bay (11) being configurable to mount a plurality of devices conforming to one or both of a first form factor (Paragraph [0019], 2.5” standard form factor) and a second form factor (SSD devices 153 with SSD form factor); and, a backplane disk bay mechanical insert (carrier 151), the backplane disk bay mechanical insert (151) being configured to arrange a plurality of devices (153) conforming to the second form factor (SSD form factor) according to the second form factor (SSD form factor), the backplane disk bay insert (151) defining a plurality of chambers (spaces accommodating 153), each of the plurality of chambers (spaces accommodating 153) being configured to receive a respective device (153) conforming to the second form factor (SSD form factor), and, a first backplane disk bay backplane element (first backplane 13) and a second backplane disk bay backplane element (second backplane 13), the first backplane disk bay backplane element (first 13) including a first backplane attachment feature (Figure 4, fixing parts 130b, 130c), the first backplane attachment feature (130b, 130c) coupling with a first attachment feature (grooves 113) of the device bay (11), the first attachment feature (113) being positioned on a bottom plate of the device bay (bottom plate of 11; see Figure 4), the second backplane disk bay backplane element (second 13) being configured to couple with the plurality of devices (153) conforming to the second form factor (SSD form factor), the second backplane disk bay backplane element (second 13) including a second attachment feature (fixing parts 130a), the second backplane attachment feature (130a) coupling with a second attachment feature (bracket accommodating screw SC) of the device bay (11), the second attachment feature (bracket accommodating screw SC) being positioned on a top plate of the device bay (top plate of 11; see Figure 4).
Zhang does not disclose wherein the plurality of chambers include a first row of chambers and a second row of chambers, the first row of chambers being arranged on top of the second row of chambers, the first row of chambers being configured to receive a first row of devices conforming to the second form factor, the second row of chambers being configured to receive a second row of devices conforming to the second form factor.
However, Zhai teaches a backplane disk bay insert (carrier 100, including sub-carriers 106; corresponding to carrier 151 in Zhang) defining a plurality of chambers (spaces accommodating devices 104-1, 104-2, 104-3, 104-4), each of the plurality of chambers (spaces accommodating 104) being configured to receive a respective device (104) conforming to the second form factor (SSD form factor), wherein the plurality of chambers (spaces accommodating 104) include a first row of chambers (spaces accommodating 104-3 and 104-4) and a second row of chambers (spaces accommodating 104-1 and 104-2), the first row of chambers (spaces accommodating 104-3 and 104-4) being arranged on top of the second row of chambers (spaces accommodating 104-1 and 104-2), the first row of chambers (spaces accommodating 104-3 and 104-4) being configured to receive a first row of devices (104-3, 104-4) conforming to the second form factor (SSD form factor), the second row of chambers (spaces accommodating 104-1 and 104-2) being configured to receive a second row of devices (104-1, 104-2) conforming to the second form factor (SSD form factor).
Because Zhang and Zhai both teach accommodating smaller SSD form factors into a 2.5” standard form factor (see Paragraph [0007] in Zhang; see col. 3 in Zhai), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the two SSD devices of Zhang for the four SSD devices and sub-carriers of Zhai according to known methods to yield the predictable results of arranging a plurality of smaller memory devices within a standard form factor. Doing so would have also provided the system with a smaller, more compact, hot-pluggable memory device (see Figure 5 in Zhang v. Figure 3 in Zhai; see col. 4, ln. 1-19 in Zhai).
Zhang in view of Zhai does not explicitly teach the first backplane disk bay backplane element being configured to couple with a plurality of devices conforming to the first form factor.
However, Lai teaches a device bay (Figures 1-5, portion of base 10 accommodating storage modules 20a, 20b), the device bay (portion of 10 accommodating 20a, 20b) being configurable to mount a plurality of devices (hard disks 24a, 24b) conforming to a first form factor (Figure 2, form factor of 24a) and a second form factor (Figure 5, form factor of 24b); and, a backplane disk bay insert (Figure 5, bracket 22b), the backplane disk bay mechanical insert (22b) being configured to arrange a plurality of devices (24b) conforming to the second form factor (form factor of 24b) according to the second form factor (form factor of 24b), and one or both of a first backplane disk bay backplane element (Figure 2, backplane 26a) and a second backplane disk bay backplane element (Figure 5, backplane 26b), the first backplane disk bay backplane element (26a) being configured to couple with a plurality of devices conforming to the first form factor (24a), the second backplane disk bay backplane element (26b) being configured to couple with the plurality of devices conforming to the second form factor (24b).
Because Zhang also suggests a similar process with backplanes 13 so as to allow the drive bay to accommodate 2.5” form factor devices (see Paragraph [0007] in Zhang), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the first backplane element of Zhang as modified by Zhai to accommodate a plurality of first form factor devices as taught in Lai. Doing so would have increased the modularity of the system by allowing a user to exchange the backplane elements based on the form factor of the connected devices (see Paragraphs [0006], [0015]-[0021] in Lai).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang in view of Zhai and Lai teaches the configurable bay device mounting system of claim 1, and further teaches (in Zhang) wherein: the first backplane disk bay backplane element (first 13, as modified by Lai) and the second backplane disk bay backplane element (second 13) are configured to be attached to a rear portion of the device bay (rear portion of 11).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang in view of Zhai and Lai teaches the configurable bay device mounting system of claim 1, further comprising (in Zhai) a disk bay insert (sub-carriers 106), the disk bay insert (106) functioning as a removable dividing partition (see Figures 1-3) for separating two or more of the plurality of devices (104).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US Publication No. 2022/0272860), Zhai (US Patent No. 10064305), Lai (US Publication No. 2009/0109609), and in further view of Grady (US Publication No. 2024/0288915).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang in view of Zhai and Lai teaches the configurable bay device mounting system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein: the first form factor is substantially twice as tall as the second form factor and substantially half as wide as the second form factor; and, the second form factor is substantially half as tall as the first form factor and substantially twice as wide as the first form factor.
However, Grady teaches a plurality of devices (see Figures 1A-2B) conforming to one or both of a first form factor (Figure 2A, EDSFF E3.S 2T drive 200) and a second form factor (Figure 1D, EDSFF E1.S drive 160; see Paragraphs [0003]-[0007] and Table 1), wherein: the first form factor (E3) is substantially twice as tall as the second form factor (E1; where E3 has a width of 76.00mm, and E1 has a width of 33.75mm) and substantially half as wide as the second form factor (E1; where E3 has a thickness of 7.50mm, and E1 has a thickness of 15.00mm); and the second form factor (E1) is substantially half as tall as the first form factor (E3; where E1 has a width of 33.75mm and E3 has a width of 76.00mm) and substantially twice as wide as the first form factor (E3; where E1 has a thickness of 15.00mm and E3 has a thickness of 7.50mm) (NOTE: Paragraph [0026] of instant application defining “substantially” as +/- 20%).
Because Zhang and Grady both teach incorporating memory modules of different sizes into a computing device, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the plurality of devices in Zhang as modified by Zhai and Lai for the plurality of devices in Grady according to known methods to yield the predictable results of utilizing a plurality of different sized memory devices within a server (see Paragraph [0019] and Figure 2 in Zhang; see Paragraphs [0032]-[0035] in Grady).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang in view of Zhai, Lai, and Grady teaches the configurable bay device mounting system of claim 2, and further teaches (in Grady) wherein: the first form factor (E3) corresponds to an enterprise and datacenter standard form factor (EDSFF) E3 form factor (see Table 1, Paragraph [0047], and Figure 2A); and, the second form factor (E1) corresponds to an EDSFF E1 form factor (see Table 1, Paragraph [0045], and Figure 1D).
Claims 7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US Publication No. 2022/0272860) in view of Zhai (US Patent No. 10064305), Lai (US Publication No. 2009/0109609), and Ping (US Publication No. 2019/0272008).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses a configurable bay device mounting system, comprising: a device bay (rack 11), the device bay (11) being defined by a first side wall (first sidewall of 11), a second side wall (second sidewall of 11), a top plate (top plate of 11) and a bottom plate (bottom plate of 11), the device bay (11) being configurable to mount a plurality of devices conforming to one or both of a first form factor (Paragraph [0019], 2.5” standard form factor) and a second form factor (SSD devices 153 with SSD form factor); and, a backplane disk bay mechanical insert (carrier 151), the backplane disk bay mechanical insert (151) being configured to arrange a plurality of devices (153) conforming to the second form factor (SSD form factor) according to the second form factor (SSD form factor), the backplane disk bay insert (151) defining a plurality of chambers (spaces accommodating 153), each of the plurality of chambers (spaces accommodating 153) being configured to receive a respective device (153) conforming to the second form factor (SSD form factor), and, a first backplane disk bay backplane element (first backplane 13) and a second backplane disk bay backplane element (second backplane 13), the first backplane disk bay backplane element (first 13) including a first backplane attachment feature (fixing parts 130b, 130c), the first backplane attachment feature (130b, 130c) coupling with a first attachment feature (grooves 113) of the device bay (11), the first attachment feature (113) being positioned on a bottom plate of the device bay (bottom plate of 11; see Figure 4), the second backplane disk bay backplane element (second 13) being configured to couple with the plurality of devices (153) conforming to the second form factor (SSD form factor), the second backplane disk bay backplane element (second 13) including a second attachment feature (fixing parts 130a), the second backplane attachment feature (130a) coupling with a second attachment feature (bracket accommodating screw SC) of the device bay (11), the second attachment feature (bracket accommodating screw SC) being positioned on a top plate of the device bay (top plate of 11; see Figure 4).
Zhang does not teach wherein the plurality of chambers include a first row of chambers and a second row of chambers, the first row of chambers being arranged on top of the second row of chambers, the first row of chambers being configured to receive a first row of devices conforming to the second form factor, the second row of chambers being configured to receive a second row of devices conforming to the second form factor.
However, Zhai teaches a backplane disk bay insert (carrier 100, including sub-carriers 106; corresponding to carrier 151 in Zhang) defining a plurality of chambers (spaces accommodating devices 104-1, 104-2, 104-3, 104-4), each of the plurality of chambers (spaces accommodating 104) being configured to receive a respective device (104) conforming to the second form factor (SSD form factor), wherein the plurality of chambers (spaces accommodating 104) include a first row of chambers (spaces accommodating 104-3 and 104-4) and a second row of chambers (spaces accommodating 104-1 and 104-2), the first row of chambers (spaces accommodating 104-3 and 104-4) being arranged on top of the second row of chambers (spaces accommodating 104-1 and 104-2), the first row of chambers (spaces accommodating 104-3 and 104-4) being configured to receive a first row of devices (104-3, 104-4) conforming to the second form factor (SSD form factor), the second row of chambers (spaces accommodating 104-1 and 104-2) being configured to receive a second row of devices (104-1, 104-2) conforming to the second form factor (SSD form factor).
Because Zhang and Zhai both teach accommodating smaller SSD form factors into a 2.5” standard form factor (see Paragraph [0007] in Zhang; see col. 3 in Zhai), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the two SSD devices of Zhang for the four SSD devices and sub-carriers of Zhai according to known methods to yield the predictable results of arranging a plurality of smaller memory devices within a standard form factor. Doing so would have also provided the system with a smaller, more compact, hot-pluggable memory device (see Figure 5 in Zhang v. Figure 3 in Zhai; see col. 4, ln. 1-19 in Zhai).
Zhang in view of Zhai does not explicitly teach the first backplane disk bay backplane element being configured to couple with a plurality of devices conforming to the first form factor.
However, Lai teaches a device bay (Figures 1-5, portion of base 10 accommodating storage modules 20a, 20b), the device bay (portion of 10 accommodating 20a, 20b) being configurable to mount a plurality of devices (hard disks 24a, 24b) conforming to a first form factor (Figure 2, form factor of 24a) and a second form factor (Figure 5, form factor of 24b); and, a backplane disk bay insert (Figure 5, bracket 22b), the backplane disk bay mechanical insert (22b) being configured to arrange a plurality of devices (24b) conforming to the second form factor (form factor of 24b) according to the second form factor (form factor of 24b), and one or both of a first backplane disk bay backplane element (Figure 2, backplane 26a) and a second backplane disk bay backplane element (Figure 5, backplane 26b), the first backplane disk bay backplane element (26a) being configured to couple with a plurality of devices conforming to the first form factor (24a), the second backplane disk bay backplane element (26b) being configured to couple with the plurality of devices conforming to the second form factor (24b).
Because Zhang also suggests a similar process with backplanes 13 so as to allow the drive bay to accommodate 2.5” form factor devices (see Paragraph [0007] in Zhang), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the first backplane element of Zhang as modified by Zhai to accommodate a plurality of first form factor devices as taught in Lai. Doing so would have increased the modularity of the system by allowing a user to exchange the backplane elements based on the form factor of the connected devices (see Paragraphs [0006], [0015]-[0021] in Lai).
Zhang in view of Zhai and Lai does not explicitly teach the system comprising: a processor; and a data bus coupled to the processor. However, Ping teaches a system comprising a processor (Paragraph [0044] and Figure 7, processor 702 of motherboard 700); and a data bus (data bus 712) coupled to the processor (702); a configurable bay device mounting system comprising a device bay (Figure 3, chassis 106) including a plurality of devices (mass storage devices 708).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the processor and data bus of Ping to the server system of Zhang as modified by Zhai and Lai. Doing so would have allowed the data stored on the memory devices in Zhang as modified by Zhai and Lai to be processed by the computing system (see Paragraphs [0045]-[0051] and Figure 7 in Ping).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang in view of Zhai, Lai, and Ping teaches the system of claim 7, and further teaches (in Zhang) wherein: the first backplane disk bay backplane element (first 13, as modified by Lai) and the second backplane disk bay backplane element (second 13) are configured to be attached to a rear portion of the device bay (rear portion 11).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang in view of Zhai, Lai, and Ping teaches the system of claim 7, further comprising (in Zhai) a disk bay insert (sub-carriers 106), the disk bay insert (106) functioning as a removable dividing partition (see Figures 1-3) for separating two or more of the plurality of devices (104).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US Publication No. 2022/0272860), Zhai (US Patent No. 10064305), Lai (US Publication No. 2009/0109609), Ping (US Publication No. 2019/0272008), and in further view of Grady (US Publication No. 2024/0288915).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang in view of Zhai, Lai, and Ping teaches the system of claim 7, but does not explicitly teach wherein: the first form factor is substantially twice as tall as the second form factor and substantially half as wide as the second form factor; and, the second form factor is substantially half as tall as the first form factor and substantially twice as wide as the first form factor.
However, Grady teaches a plurality of devices (see Figures 1A-2B) conforming to one or both of a first form factor (Figure 2A, EDSFF E3.S 2T drive 200) and a second form factor (Figure 1D, EDSFF E1.S drive 160; see Paragraphs [0003]-[0007] and Table 1), wherein: the first form factor (E3) is substantially twice as tall as the second form factor (E1; where E3 has a width of 76.00mm, and E1 has a width of 33.75mm) and substantially half as wide as the second form factor (E1; where E3 has a thickness of 7.50mm, and E1 has a thickness of 15.00mm); and the second form factor (E1) is substantially half as tall as the first form factor (E3; where E1 has a width of 33.75mm and E3 has a width of 76.00mm) and substantially twice as wide as the first form factor (E3; where E1 has a thickness of 15.00mm and E3 has a thickness of 7.50mm) (NOTE: Paragraph [0026] of instant application defining “substantially” as +/- 20%).
Because Zhang and Grady both teach incorporating memory modules of different sizes into a computing device, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the plurality of devices in Zhang as modified by Zhai, Lai, and Ping for the plurality of devices in Grady according to known methods to yield the predictable results of utilizing a plurality of different sized memory devices within a server (see Paragraph [0019] and Figure 2 in Zhang; see Paragraphs [0032]-[0035] in Grady).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang in view of Zhai, Lai, Ping, and Grady teaches the system of claim 8, and further teaches (in Grady) wherein: the first form factor (E3) corresponds to an enterprise and datacenter standard form factor (EDSFF) E3 form factor (see Table 1, Paragraph [0047], and Figure 2A); and, the second form factor (E1) corresponds to an EDSFF E1 form factor (see Table 1, Paragraph [0045], and Figure 1D).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
PNG
media_image1.png
761
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues Lai does not teach the claim amendments (Arguments, pages 6-7). However, Examiner submits Zhang teaches the claim amendments, under a different interpretation of Zhang previously asserted in the Non-Final Action mailed July 15, 2025. Specifically, Examiner submits Zhang teaches first and second disk bay backplane elements (first and second 13) coupled to the device bay (11) via various attachment features (113, 130; see Figure 4 below). Lai is merely cited to show it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to have modified one of the disk bay backplane elements to accommodate a plurality of devices having a different form factor, as suggested in Zhang.
For these reasons, and the reasons detailed above, claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-12 stand rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Okamoto (US Publication No. 2008/0239689), Killen (US Publication No. 2017/0164501), Wong (US Publication No. 2021/0132667), Tsorng (US Patent No. 10622026) also teach elements of the claimed device.
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 GAGE STEPHEN CRUM whose telephone number is (571)272-3373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allen Parker can be reached at (303)297-4722. 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.
/GAGE CRUM/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
gsc
Prosecution Insights