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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection presented in Non-final rejection mailed on 05/21/2025 has been withdrawn in view of current amendment.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 12-13, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Goza (US 20110110026; “Goza” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Goza discloses a system for a charting cabinet, said system comprising: a charting station (module 28 including a monitor 30 and keyboard 33, fig. 2); a computer cabinet (CPU module 34) coupled to said charting station (28) (figs 8-10); at least one supplemental cabinet (medical storage module 26) coupled to said computer cabinet (34) (medical storage module 26 is directly or indirectly coupled to the computer cabinet or module 34, fig. 7-10) (“It will be noted that the relative positions of CPU module 34 and monitor/keyboard module 28 are inverted in this example as compared to that of FIG. 3-6. Thus, the various modules may be rearranged as desired”, Par. [0082]); a panel (11; figs. 9-10) coupled to said computer cabinet (34)( computer cabinet 34 is coupled to the rail 11; fig. 9-10); wherein said computer cabinet (34) comprises a back (back wall of the computer cabinet 34), and wherein panel couples to said back of the computer cabinet (figs 9-10); a wall, and wherein said panel creates an air gap between said computer cabinet and said wall (“When using a rack mounted system, as indicated by frame or base 18, shown for example in FIGS. 9, 10, 11, and 12, electrical, electronic, and at least some air vents may be made to communicate through an offset space that may be provided between the backs of the modules and the wall if the rack provides an offset between the backs of the modules and the wall…”, Par. [0075], par. [0092]).
Goza does not explicitly disclose wherein said back of the computer cabinet is a false back.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the back of the computer cabinet to have a false back, since having a false back appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). The modification incorporating false back helps to hide components like wires used to connect lights, cameras. (It is evident from paragraph [0025] of Hasselback et al. US 20150320209 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Goza discloses wherein said computer cabinet (34) and said supplemental cabinet (28) are vertically aligned (figs 8-10).
Regarding claim 3, Goza discloses wherein said system comprises a mount (18) which extends downwardly beyond said computer cabinet and said supplemental cabinet (at least bottom 25 of the frame 18 extends below the modules 34 and 26, figs 9-10).
Regarding claim 4, Goza discloses the system of claim 3 further comprising a base (58 and/or 32) coupled to said mount (18).
Regarding claim 5, Goza discloses wherein said charting station (monitor/keyboard module 28) comprises a monitor (30) and a data entry (keyboard 33) device electrically coupled to said base (58) (“monitor/keyboard module 28 comprise doors which may be opened either by horizontally folding down or vertically pivoting open. The modules comprise ports or openings, preferably utilizing standard flat top elements 58”, Par. [0111] and also see Par. [0092] and [0110]).
Regarding claim 6, Goza discloses wherein said monitor comprises a power cord (94), and wherein said power cord is within said base (58) (see fig. 20 and also Par. [0110]).
Regarding claim 12, Goza discloses wherein said supplemental cabinet comprises a lock (medical storage module 26 may be electrically locked, Par. [0077]; “medical storage module 26 comprises door 29, which is preferably lockable”, Par. [0078]).
Regarding claim 13, Goza discloses wherein said supplemental cabinet is below said computer cabinet (“It will be noted that the relative positions of CPU module 34 and monitor/keyboard module 28 are inverted in this example as compared to that of figs. 3-6. Thus, the various modules may be rearranged as desired”, Par. [0082]).
Regarding claim 17, Goza discloses the system of claim 1 further comprising a cap (58 that goes on top of computer module 34 that comprises of vents 51 and 53, fig. 3) located atop said computer cabinet (34) (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19, Goza discloses the system as claimed in claim 5.
Goza does not explicitly disclose wherein said back of computer cabinet is open.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the back of the computer cabinet to be opened, since it was known in the art to have an open back as such open back configuration allows flow of air and helps in cooling.
Regarding claim 20, Goza discloses wherein said back of computer cabinet is enclosed (the back wall of the computer cabinet 34 is enclosed, fig. 4).
Claim(s) 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goza in view of Paydar et al. (US 20120323362; “Paydar hereinafter).
Regarding claim 7, Goza discloses the system as claimed in claim 5.
Goza does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 1 further comprising an arm which couples said monitor to said base.
Paydar discloses a system comprising: a charting station (116, 122, 120, 140 and 142); a computer cabinet (114) coupled to said charting station (Par. [0050]); and the system further comprising an arm (130) which couples a monitor (118) to a base (fig. 3A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Goza to include an arm which couples said monitor to said base as taught by Paydar because such modification provides swiveling support to the monitor and the keyboard so that the monitor and the keyboard could be positioned at a user comfortable or desirable position.
Regarding claim 8, Goza in view of Paydar (relied on Paydar) discloses wherein said arm (130) further couples to a data entry device (keyboard 122) (figs. 1, 3A-3B).
Regarding claim 9, Goza in view of Paydar discloses wherein said data entry device comprises a keyboard (33 of Goza or 122 of Paydar both are keyboard)
Regarding claim 10, the modified system or device of Goza discloses the system of claim 7.
The modified system of Goza does not explicitly disclose the system further comprising a scanner.
Paydar further teaches the system further comprising a scanner (140 or 142 or 144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Goza to incorporate a scanner as taught by Paydar because such modification helps to scan and authenticate the user.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goza in view of Waugh et al. (US 20070069614; “Waugh” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 18, Goza discloses the system as claimed in claim 5.
Goza does not explicitly disclose wherein said cap comprises an exhaust fan
Waugh teaches a system comprising a cap or a cover comprising an exhaust fan (26) (“housing 16 may include at least one cooling device 26, such as a vent or fan, to facilitate airflow into and out of housing 16 to cool CPU 22 or other electronic equipment”., Par. [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cap of Goza to include an exhaust fan as suggested by Waugh because such modification facilitates airflow into and out of housing to cool CPU or other electronic equipment (Par. [0017]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has not presented any argument(s) explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them, except citing that the amendment overcomes the rejection. Goza teaches the limitation claim 1 or is obvious from the teaching of Goza, please see the rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hasselback et al. (US 20150320209) teaches a cabinet comprising a plurality of compartments that are configured to house an electronic device, personal computer (par. [0013]); the cabinet comprises a false back (116) (par. [0025]) disposed at the rear of the shell (102) (figs 2-3).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAGAR SHRESTHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1236. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-6:30 pm, Monday-Friday.
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.
/SAGAR SHRESTHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841