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 Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, in line 12, recites: “to adapt the first device slot to a first of the plural footprints”, and in lines 14-15, recites: “to adapt the second device slot to a second of the plural footprints”. The underlined text above should read “the plural different footprints”, for consistency and to prevent lack of antecedent issues.
Claim 2, in lines 2 and 5, recites: “plural device types”. It should read: “plural types of devices”, for consistency with the language used in Claim 1 and to prevent lack of antecedent issues.
Claim 5, in line 2 recites: “a first WNIC having a first footprint”. It should read: “a first WNIC having the first of the plural footprints”, “a first WNIC having a third footprint”, or other alternative phrasing that helps clarify whether “first footprint” is the same as “first of the plural of footprints” of Claim 1 or is different. A similar objection is raised regarding “a second footprint” (Claim 5, line 5).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 20220066519 A1, and Ma hereinafter) in view of Chang (US 11340665 B2) and Shih (US 9564712 B1, and Shih hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1, Ma discloses an information handling system comprising:
a housing (326, fig. 1);
a motherboard (328, fig. 1);
a processor coupled to the motherboard and operable to execute instructions that process information (“components of the computing device 301 … may include processors … for use with a computing device 301”, [0031] processor would necessarily be coupled to motherboard, directly or indirectly);
a memory coupled to the motherboard and interfaced with the processor (“components of the computing device 301 … may include … memory … for use with a computing device 301”, [0031], memory would necessarily be coupled to motherboard and interfaced with processor, indirectly or indirectly), the memory operable to store the instructions and information (inherently taught since function of memory in a computing system is to store information);
a device slot (fig. 3C, region of 328 where 314 is located) defined on the motherboard and configured to accept a type of device having a footprint (fig. 3C), the footprint including a standoff height away above the motherboard (fig. 3C); and
a slot adapter (300, fig. 3B) configured to couple to the device slot in a first configuration to adapt the device slot to the footprint with a first standoff height above the motherboard (fig. 3C).
Ma does not explicitly disclose plural device slots, plural types of devices, plural different footprints, the plural different footprints including different standoff heights away above the motherboard; and the slot adapter configured to couple to a second of the plural device slots in a second configuration to adapt the second device slot to a second of the plural footprints with a second standoff height above the motherboard and different than the first standoff height.
Chang discloses plural device slots (fig. 1A: regions of 130 where 113 and 123 are located) defined on a motherboard (130, fig. 1A) and configured to accept plural types of devices having plural footprints (113 and 123, fig. 1A), the plural footprints including different standoff heights away above the motherboard (fig. 1A); and
a slot adapter (including 110 and 120, fig. 1A) configured to couple to a first of the plural device slots in a first configuration to adapt the first device slot to a first of the plural footprints with a first standoff height above the motherboard (figs. 1A and 1C, first standoff height: standoff height of 113 and 117) and to a second of the plural device slots in a second configuration to adapt the second device slot to a second of the plural footprints with a second standoff height above the motherboard (figs. 1A and 1C, second standoff height: standoff height of 123 and 127) and different than the first standoff height (“The primary difference between tiered locking mechanisms 110, 120 is that the installation height of the respective component cards 113, 123 that the locking mechanisms 110, 120 secure are different”, [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ma to incorporate the teachings of Chang so that it comprises plural device slots defined on the motherboard and configured to accept plural types of devices having plural footprints, the plural footprints including different standoff heights away above the motherboard; and a slot adapter configured to couple to a first of the plural device slots in a first configuration to adapt the first device slot to a first of the plural footprints with a first standoff height above the motherboard and to a second of the plural device slots in a second configuration to adapt the second device slot to a second of the plural footprints with a second standoff height above the motherboard and different than the first standoff height, in order to provide greater versatility in the configurations of component cards that can be added to the main PCB (“Users may often have a need to add or replace a component card to the main PCB. There is a need for more versatile lock mechanisms for computing devices that provide for the securing of different component cards, such as M.2 cards, in different configurations”, [0003] of Chang). This modification would be implemented by adding device slots to the motherboard and substituting the slot adapter accordingly.
Shih discloses plural different footprints (figs. 1 and 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ma and Chang to incorporate the teachings of Shih so that the plural footprints are different, in order to accommodate expansion cards of different sizes (“There is a need for more versatile lock mechanisms for computing devices that provide for the securing of different component cards, such as M.2 cards, in different configurations”, [0003] of Chang).
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Chang and Shih, further in view of Lee (US 11675399 B1, and Lee hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 2, Ma/Chang/Shih discloses the information handling system of Claim 1, wherein:
a first of the plural device types having a signal interface at a first end (fig. 3B of Ma: end 314a connects to 330) and a screw opening at a second end opposite the first end (334 fig. 3C of Ma); the slot adapter having an opening (415, fig. 4 of Chang. See rejection of Claim 1 above) to accept a screw (415, fig. 4 of Chang) and a structure to elevate the second device over the device slot (368, fig. 4 of Chang).
Ma/Chang/Shi does not explicitly disclose a first of the plural device types comprises a 2280 solid state drive (SSD) and a second of the plural device types comprises a 2230 SSD having the signal interface at a first end and the screw opening at a second end.
Lee discloses a first of a plural device types (200, fig. 1) comprises a 2280 solid state drive (SSD) (“common specifications of the expansion cards include … 2280”, Col. 1, ln. 26-27; and “the expansion card 200 is a solid state drive (SSD) module”, Col. 1, ln. 65-66) having a signal interface at a first end (right end portion of 200 that connects with 20, fig. 5A) and a screw opening at a second end opposite the first end (semicircular opening at left end portion of 200, fig. 5A); and
a second of the plural device types comprises a 2230 SSD (fig. 5C, “common specifications of the expansion cards include … 2230”, Col. 1, ln. 26-27; and “the expansion card 200 is a solid state drive (SSD) module”, Col. 1, ln. 65-66) having the signal interface at a first end (right end portion of 200 that connects with 20, fig. 5C) and the screw opening at a second end (semicircular opening at left end portion of 200, fig. 5C).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ma/Shih to incorporate the teachings of Lee so that a first of the plural device types comprises a 2280 solid state drive (SSD) having a signal interface at a first end and a screw opening at a second end opposite the first end; and a second of the plural device types comprises a 2230 SSD having the signal interface at a first end and the screw opening at a second end, in order to accommodate devices having dimensions that are common and commercially available (“For example, the common specifications of the expansion cards include 2230 (30 mm), 2242 (42 mm), 2260 (60 mm), 2280 (80 mm), 22110 (110 mm), and so on”, Col. 1, ln. 25-28 of Lee).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Chang, Shi, and Lee, further in view of Perry et al. (US 12249793 B2, and Perry hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 5, Ma/Chang/Shi discloses the information handling system of Claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose
a third of the plural devices comprises a first WNIC having a first footprint with a signal interface at a first end and coupled to a second of the plural device slots with a screw at a second end; and a fourth of the plural devices comprises a second WNIC having a second footprint with a signal interface at a first end and coupled to the second device slot with a screw at a second end, the slot adapter having an opening to accept a screw and a structure to elevate the fourth device over the device slot.
Perry discloses plural types of device including WNIC (“Types of peripherals or modules that may utilize the M.2 standard can include flash storage devices, other storage devices, Wi-Fi adapters, Bluetooth adapters, satellite navigation modules, Near-Field Communications (NFC) modules, digital radio, WiGig adapters, Wireless Wide Area Networking (WWAN) adapters (such as cellular modules)”; where at least WWAN is commonly considered as a WNIC (Wireless Network Internet Controller) device under the broadest reasonable interpretation) having a footprint with a signal interface at a first end (left end fig. 4A).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Ma, Chang, Shih and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Perry, so that a third of the plural devices comprises a first WNIC; and a fourth of the plural devices comprises a second WNIC, in order to allow the user to have wireless network connectivity by using expansion cards that might have different dimensions. Having multiple slots for different expansion cards is a common practice in the art and, in this case, would require adding third and fourth device slots and their corresponding slot adapters to the motherboard, to accommodate third and fourth devices. Furthermore, since the geometrical characteristics disclosed by Perry are similar to the expansion cards of Ma/Chang/Shih/Lee, a person of ordinary skill would have found obvious to have the third of the plural devices coupled to a second of the plural device slots with a screw at a second end; and a fourth of the plural devices coupled to the second device slot with a screw at a second end, the slot adapter having an opening to accept a screw and a structure to elevate the fourth device over the device slot, as this operating configuration is similar to what is disclosed in the prior art cited above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6-8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 17, and 21-22 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 3, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “the slot adapter couples in an upright orientation to adapt the first of the plural device slots to accept the 2230 SSD having the first standoff height and an inverted orientation to adapt the first of the plural device slots to a wireless network interface controller (WNIC) device having the second standoff height”. Shih (US 9564712 B1), Varrey (US 12557230 B1), Meserth (US 9778708 B1), Chen (US 10299397 B1), Tseng (US 12449864 B2), Tsai (US 20150039797 A1), Lee (US 11675399 B1), Ma (US 20230028263 A1), Lin (US 20080191590 A1), Ehlen (US 10133319 B2), Zhou (US 20130105422 A1), Lyons (US 20230180417 A1), and Yu (US 20130084128 A1) are cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including plural device slots, plural device types, and/or slot adapters. However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant. For instance, Shih discloses an information handling system comprising a slot adapter in an upright orientation (fig. 5: upper instance of 40) to adapt a first of plural devices slots to accept a device having a first standoff height (fig. 5) and an inverted orientation (fig. 5: lower instance of 40) to adapt the first of plural devices slots to a second device having a second standoff height (fig. 5); however, the inverted orientation disclosed by Shih requires the second standoff height to be below the motherboard (and the first standoff height to be above the motherboard) which is not compatible with the second standoff height being above the motherboard and different than the first standoff height as claimed in claim 1, from which claim 3 depends on. Modifying Shih to be compatible with said limitations would require structural changes beyond what a PHOSITA would consider obvious. Furthermore, Shih does not explicitly disclose the first device being a 2230 SSD and the second device being a wireless network interface controller (WNIC).
Regarding Claim 6, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “the slot adapter couples in an inverted orientation to adapt the second of the plural device slots to accept the fourth of the plural devices”. Shih (US 9564712 B1), Varrey (US 12557230 B1), Meserth (US 9778708 B1), Chen (US 10299397 B1), Tseng (US 12449864 B2), Tsai (US 20150039797 A1), Lee (US 11675399 B1), Ma (US 20230028263 A1), Lin (US 20080191590 A1), Ehlen (US 10133319 B2), Zhou (US 20130105422 A1), Lyons (US 20230180417 A1), and Yu (US 20130084128 A1) are cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including plural device slots, plural device types, and/or slot adapters. However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant. For instance, Shih discloses an information handling system comprising a slot adapter couples in an inverted orientation (fig. 5: lower instance of 40); however Shih lacks in to adapt the second of the plural device slots to accept the fourth of the plural devices. Furthermore, the inverted orientation disclosed by Shih requires the second standoff height to be below the motherboard (and the first standoff height to be above the motherboard) which is not compatible with the second standoff height being above the motherboard and different than the first standoff height as claimed in claim 1, from which claim 3 depends on. Modifying Shih to be compatible with said limitations would require structural changes beyond what a PHOSITA would consider obvious.
Regarding independent Claim 17, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “second device in a second device slot with an inverted slot adapter orientation having a second standoff height when a device rests on a second upper surface in the inverted slot adapter orientation”. Shih (US 9564712 B1), Varrey (US 12557230 B1), Meserth (US 9778708 B1), Chen (US 10299397 B1), Tseng (US 12449864 B2), Tsai (US 20150039797 A1), Lee (US 11675399 B1), Ma (US 20230028263 A1), Lin (US 20080191590 A1), Ehlen (US 10133319 B2), Zhou (US 20130105422 A1), Lyons (US 20230180417 A1), and Yu (US 20130084128 A1), are cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including a frame, housing, slots, and/or slot adapters. However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant. For instance, Shih discloses an information handling system comprising a second device (60, fig. 5) in a second device slot with an inverted slot adapter orientation (bottom instance of 40, fig. 5) having a second standoff height (fig. 5) but lacks when a device rests on a second upper surface in the inverted slot adapter orientation. In fact, the inverted orientation disclosed by Shih requires the second standoff height to be below the motherboard (and the first standoff height to be above the motherboard) which is not compatible with the second standoff height being above the motherboard and different than the first standoff height as claimed in claim 1, from which claim 3 depends on. Modifying Shih to be compatible with said limitations would require structural changes beyond what a PHOSITA would consider obvious.
Regarding independent Claim 21, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “a frame contained in the housing interior and having plural slot adapters removably integrated to separate from the frame and couple into a device slot”. Ma (20220066519 A1), Chang (US 11340665 B2), Shih (US 9564712 B1), Tsai (US 20150039797 A1), Lee (US 11675399 B1), Ma (US 20230028263 A1), Lai (US 20180295710 A1), O’Neal (US 20010012726 A1), Lin (US 20080191590 A1), Chen (US 6764330 B1), Choyikkunnil (US 11229140 B2), Fleischer (US 11311114 B1), Lee (US 20100268858 A1), and Ehlen (US 10133319 B2), are cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including a frame, housing, slots, and/or slot adapters. However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant. For instance, Ma discloses an information handling system a housing (326, fig. 1); a motherboard (328, fig. 1); a processor coupled to the motherboard and operable to execute instructions that process information; a memory coupled to the motherboard and interfaced with the processor ([0031]), the memory operable to store the instructions and information; a device slot (fig. 3C, region of 328 where 314 is located) defined on the motherboard and configured to accept a type of device having a footprint (fig. 3C), the footprint including a standoff height away above the motherboard (fig. 3C); and a slot adapter (300, fig. 3B) configured to couple to the device slot in a first configuration to adapt the device slot to the footprint with a first standoff height above the motherboard (fig. 3C). However, Ma lacks plural device slots, plural types of devices, plural different footprints; the slot adapter configured to couple to a second of the plural device slots in a second configuration to adapt the second device slot to a second of the plural footprints; and a frame contained in the housing interior and having plural slot adapters removably integrated to separate from the frame and couple into a device slot. Chang discloses plural device slots (fig. 1A: regions of 130 where 113 and 123 are located) defined on a motherboard (130, fig. 1A) and configured to accept plural types of devices having plural footprints (113 and 123, fig. 1A), the plural footprints including different standoff heights away above the motherboard (fig. 1A); and a slot adapter (including 110 and 120, fig. 1A) configured to couple to a first of the plural device slots in a first configuration to adapt the first device slot to a first of the plural footprints with a first standoff height above the motherboard (figs. 1A and 1C, first standoff height: standoff height of 113 and 117) and to a second of the plural device slots in a second configuration to adapt the second device slot to a second of the plural footprints with a second standoff height above the motherboard (figs. 1A and 1C, second standoff height: standoff height of 123 and 127) and different than the first standoff height ([0027]). However, Chang lacks a frame contained in the housing interior and having plural slot adapters removably integrated to separate from the frame and couple into a device slot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
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 Martin A Asmat-Uceda whose telephone number is (571)270-7198. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 5 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 L 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.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/MARTIN ANTONIO ASMAT UCEDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights