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 .
This communication is in response to the claim’s amendment dated 6/18/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (regarding art rejection) filed on 6/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Issues raised by the Applicant: (The Applicant’s main points of the arguments are bolded as shown below):
“Amend claim 1 the following distinguishing features: first mounting flanges detachably and vertically arranged at two sides of a front end of the cabinet frame, second mounting flanges detachably and vertically arranged at the two sides of the front end of the cabinet frame, first support brackets and second support brackets both detachably arranged at two side walls of the cabinet frame and configured for installing an ODCC server and an OCP server separately; wherein a plurality of first locking holes are formed in the first mounting flanges along a height direction, and a plurality of second locking holes are formed in the second mounting flanges along the height direction, and the plurality of first locking holes and the plurality of second locking holes are configured for locking a front end of the ODCC server and a front end of the OCP server separately; the first mounting flanges are closer to the front end of the
cabinet frame than the second mounting flanges.
The Examiner asserts that D2 teaches a similar structure of a server cabinet, which suggests a plurality of locking holes (138G; figure 6) configured for locking a front end (front end of 122A; figures 7A-B) of the server (122A; figures 7A-B) are formed in the first mounting flanges (110A; figure 1) along a height direction (see figure 1; vertical direction of 110A). (a) Applicant respectfully disagrees with the examiner's opinion for the following reasons.
According to paragraph [0034] of D2, it is recorded that the second plate 139B includes a screw hole 138G for securing the tie-down bracket 138 to the vertical column 110A of the rack system 100. It is evident from FIG. 6 of D2 that the screw hole 138G serves to fasten the L-shaped tie-down bracket 138 onto the vertical column 110A, rather than to lock the front end of the server as the examiner contends. Further, the vertical column 110A in D2 does not correspond to the first mounting flange 2 of the present invention but rather corresponds to the front vertical post 101 of the present invention. Therefore, D2 fails to disclose or suggest the features recited above of the present invention. The invention of claim 1 relates to providing two kinds of mounting flanges, support brackets and locking holes, so as to be compatible with two standard servers in general; however, neither D1 nor D2 have the two mounting and locking structures of the present invention.
(b) With regard to D1, the structural arrangement of the mounting brackets in D1 is different from the mounting flanges in the present invention. The first mounting bracket 21 and the second mounting bracket 23 in D1 are rotatably connected, thereby realizing the installation of servers with different widths. In the present invention, the first mounting flanges 2 and the second mounting flanges 3 are separately arranged on two side of the front end of the cabinet frame 1 and are arranged at intervals in front and back on the cabinet frame 1. Therefore, the mounting brackets in D1 cannot disclose the mounting flanges in the present invention.
In summary, D1 and D2 both fail to disclose or suggest all features of the invention of claim 1. In addition, D3-D5 also fail to disclose or suggest the above distinguishing features. Amended claim 1 is therefore patentable.
For these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2-4 and 6-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
The Examiner’s position:
a) The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. In the rejection of claim 1, D2 was applied to show the suggestion of a plurality of locking holes, and it would have been obvious to further equip the first/second flanges of D1 with a plurality of first locking holes configured for locking a front end of the server (300) are formed in the first mounting flanges along a height direction, and a plurality of second locking holes configured for locking a front end of the OCP server are formed in the second mounting flanges along the height direction, as suggested by D2, to lock or tie down the respective server(s) to the respective first/second flanges. Note: the language “configured for” is not a positively claimed limitation. Claim 1 merely requires the capability of locking involving said plurality of locking holes.
b) The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. It appears the Applicant reads the specification/drawings of the current application into the claim.
- The Applicant’s argument regarding 112(b) rejection is persuasive. The previous 112(b) rejection is hereby withdrawn.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 1-4, 6-7 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. U.S. Patent 9,635,776 (hereinafter D1) in view of Bold et al. U.S. Pub. 2020/0137917 (hereinafter D2).
PNG
media_image1.png
637
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, D1 teaches a server cabinet (see figure 1), comprising:
a cabinet frame (10; figure 1);
first mounting flanges (23; figure 1) detachably and vertically arranged at two sides (column 3, lines 21-24) of a front end (see column 3, lines 21-24) of the cabinet frame (10);
second mounting flanges (21; figure 1) detachably and vertically arranged at the two sides (see column 3, lines 21-24) of the front end of the cabinet frame; the first support brackets and the second support brackets both detachably arranged at two side walls of the cabinet frame;
first support brackets (see above annotated figure 1) and second support brackets (see above annotated figure 1) detachably (see figures 1 and 4; brackets 30 can be moved and detached) arranged at two side walls of the cabinet frame and configured for installing a server (300; see paragraph bridging columns 1-2) and second support brackets (see above annotated figure 1) detachably (see figures 1 and 4; brackets 30 can be moved and detached) arranged at the two side walls of the cabinet frame and configured for installing another type of server (400; see paragraph bridging columns 1-2);
the first mounting flanges (23) being closer (see figures 1-3) to the front end of the cabinet frame than the second mounting flanges (21).
However, D1 does not specifically teach a plurality of first locking holes are formed in the first mounting flanges along a height direction, and a plurality of second locking holes are formed in the second mounting flanges along the height direction; and
the plurality of first locking holes and the plurality of second locking holes are configured for locking a front end of the ODCC server and a front end of the OCP server separately.
D2 teaches a similar structure of a server cabinet, which suggests a plurality of locking holes (138G; figure 6) configured for locking a front end (front end of 122A; figures 7A-B) of the server (122A; figures 7A-B) are formed in the first mounting flanges (110A; figure 1) along a height direction (see figure 1; vertical direction of 110A).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further equip the first/second flanges of D1 with a plurality of first locking holes configured for locking a front end of the server (300) are formed in the first mounting flanges along a height direction, and a plurality of second locking holes configured for locking a front end of the OCP server are formed in the second mounting flanges along the height direction, as suggested by D2, to lock or tie down the respective server(s) to the respective first/second flanges.
Even though, D1/D2 does not specifically teach said servers are ODCC server and OCP server, however, the claimed ODCC server and OCP server are merely intended use.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify/equip the server cabinet of D1 with a plurality of first mounting holes configured for being matched with a front end of the ODCC server (intended use) being formed in the first mounting flanges along a height direction, and a plurality of second mounting holes configured for being matched with a front end of the OCP server (intended use) being formed in the second mounting flanges along the height direction, as suggested by D2, for accommodating different servers with different sizes.
The modification of D1/D2, as explained above, would result in the plurality of first locking holes and the plurality of second locking holes being configured for locking a front end of the ODCC server and a front end of the OCP server separately.
Regarding claim 2, the modification of D1 in view of D2 would result in the server cabinet according to claim 1, wherein front vertical posts (12; figures 1-4; see paragraph bridging columns 1-2 of D1) are provided at the two sides of the front end of the cabinet frame, and the first mounting flanges and the second mounting flanges are both provided on the front vertical posts (see figures 2-3 of D1).
Regarding claim 3, the modification of D1 in view of D2 would result in the server cabinet according to claim 2, wherein a plurality of columns of mounting holes (2142; figure 2 and 2341; figure 3 of D1) are provided on surfaces of the front vertical posts along a mounting direction (see figures 2-3 of D1), and the first mounting flanges and the second mounting flanges respectively installed in corresponding (see figures 2-3 of D1) columns of mounting holes of the plurality of columns of mounting holes.
Regarding claim 4, D1/D2 teaches the server cabinet according to claim 2, wherein the first mounting flanges and the second mounting flanges are integrally connected by connecting plates (top and bottom 11; figure 1 of D1) and the connecting plates are detachably provided on the front vertical posts.
Regarding claim 6, D1/D2 teaches the server cabinet according to claim 1, even though, D1/D2 does not specifically teach wherein both the first locking holes and the second locking holes are square holes, round holes, or polygonal holes, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of said first/second mounting holes to be square holes, round holes or polygonal holes, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 7, D1/D2 teaches the server cabinet according to claim 1, wherein both the first support brackets and the second support brackets are U-shaped supports (see figure 1 of D1).
Even though, D1/D2 does not specifically teach that each inner width of the first support brackets equivalent to a height of the ODCC server and each inner width of the second support brackets is equivalent to a height of the OCP server, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify/change the height of each of inner width of the first/second support brackets such that each inner width of the first support brackets equivalent to a height of the ODCC server and each inner width of the second support brackets is equivalent to a height of the OCP server, for structural integrity purpose, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, D1/D2 teaches the server cabinet according to claim 1, wherein the cabinet frame is in a shape of a vertical cuboid (see figure 1 of D1), the cabinet frame comprises a bottom plate (plate opposite of 13; figure 1 of D1), a top plate (13; figure 1 of D1), side covers (implicitly taught in figure 1 of D1), a front cover (implicitly taught in figure 1 of D1), and a rear cover (implicitly taught in figure 1 of D1).
Regarding claim 12, D1/D2 teaches the server cabinet according to claim 1, wherein the first support brackets (see figure 1 of D1 and above rejection of claim 1) are stacked (see figure 1 of D1) in the height direction of the cabinet frame.
Regarding claim 13, D1/D2 teaches the server cabinet according to claim 1, wherein second support brackets (see above rejection of claim 1 and figure 1 of D1) are stacked in the height direction of the cabinet frame.
Regarding claim 14, D1/D2 teaches the server cabinet according to claim 2, wherein the front vertical posts (12; figure 1 of D1) at the two sides are connected to form a rectangular enclosure frame, and are sleeved on the front end of the cabinet frame.
Regarding claim 15, as mentioned above, D1/D2 teaches the server cabinet according to claim 3.
Even though, D1/D2 does not specifically teach wherein the first mounting flanges stand on an outer end edge positions of the front vertical posts, and the second mounting flanges stand on an inner end edge positions of the front vertical posts, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrange or rearrange the positions of said first/second mounting flanges, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involved only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
PNG
media_image2.png
655
476
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, D1/D2 teaches the server cabinet according to claim 7, wherein each of the first support brackets and the second support brackets comprises a groove bottom plate (see above annotated figure 4 of D1) and two side groove wall plates (see above annotated figure 4 of D1), the groove bottom plate is attached to an inner wall surfaces (see figure 4 of D1) at the two sides of the cabinet frame, and a lengthwise direction of the groove bottom plate is parallel (see figure 1 of D1) to a depth direction of the cabinet frame.
Regarding claim 17, D1/D2 teaches the server cabinet according to claim 7, wherein each of the first support brackets and the second support brackets is provided with one groove wall plate (see above annotated figure 4 of D1) and a groove bottom plate (see above annotated figure 4 of D1), the groove wall plate stands vertically at a bottom (see figure 4 of D1) of the groove bottom plate to form an L-shaped structure.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1/D2 in view of Chen U.S. Patent 11,382,235 (hereinafter D3).
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned above, D1/D2 teaches the server cabinet according to claim 7.
However, D1/D2 does not specifically teach wherein rear ends of the first support brackets and the second support brackets are respectively provided with limiting blocks for blocking the ODCC server and the OCP server to limit the maximum installing depth of the ODCC server and the OCP server in the cabinet frame.
D3, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a server cabinet, wherein rear ends of the support brackets (34; figure 1) are provided with limiting blocks (321; figure 1) for blocking the apparatus to limit the maximum installing depth of said apparatus in the cabinet frame.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further equip the server cabinet of D1/D2 with limiting blocks, as suggested by D3, such that rear ends of the first support brackets and the second support brackets are respectively provided with limiting blocks for blocking the ODCC server and the OCP server to limit the maximum installing depth of the ODCC server and the OCP server in the cabinet frame.
Claims 9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1/D2 in view of Goergen et al. U.S. Patent 10,932,387 (hereinafter D4).
Regarding claim 9, D1/D2 teaches the server cabinet according to claim 1.
However, D1/D2 does not specifically teach wherein the server cabinet further comprises first locking attachment members provided on side walls of a rear end of the cabinet frame and for fixing ODCC busbars, and second locking attachment members provided on side walls of the rear end of the cabinet frame and for fixing OCP busbars
D4, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a server cabinet, which comprises locking attachment members (20 + 22 + 32; figure 3 of D4) provided on side wall of a rear end (see figure 1 of D4) of the cabinet frame for fixing busbars.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further equip the server cabinet of D1/D2 with first locking attachment members provided on side walls of a rear end of the cabinet frame and for fixing ODCC busbars, and second locking attachment members provided on side walls of the rear end of the cabinet frame and for fixing OCP busbars, as suggested by D4, for cables/busbars management.
Regarding claim 18, the modification of D1/D2 in view of D4 would result in the server cabinet according to claim 9, wherein the first locking attachment members comprise bolts (32; figure 3 of D4) or rivets; or the second locking attachment members comprise bolts (32; figure 3 of D4) or rivets.
Regarding claim 19, as mentioned above, D1/D2/D4 teaches the server cabinet according to claim 9.
Even though, D1/D2/D4 does not specifically teach that the OCP busbars are provided at a central position of the rear end of the cabinet frame, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the positions of said busbars such that the busbars would be provided at a central position of the rear end of the cabinet frame, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involved only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 20, as mentioning above, D1/D2/D4 teaches the server cabinet according to claim 9.
Even though, D1/D2/D4 does not specifically teach that the first support brackets are arranged in an upper half area of the cabinet frame, and the second support brackets are arranged in a lower half area of the cabinet frame, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the positions of said first/second support brackets of D1 such that the first support brackets are arranged in an upper half area of the cabinet frame, and the second support brackets are arranged in a lower half area of the cabinet frame, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involved only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1/D2/D4 and in further view of Nguyen et al. U.S. Patent 10,349,553 (hereinafter D5).
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned above, D1/D2/D4 teaches the server cabinet according to claim 9.
However, D1/D2/D4 teaches does not specifically teach the server cabinet further comprises a butt block provided at a middle part in the height direction of the side walls of the rear end of the cabinet frame and for vertically abutting joint two of the ODCC busbars; and a butt cross beam transversely connected between the two side walls of the rear end of the cabinet frame and for vertically abutting joint two of the OCP busbars.
PNG
media_image3.png
711
514
media_image3.png
Greyscale
D5, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a server cabinet which further comprises a butt block (see above annotated figure 1 of D5) provided at a middle part in the height direction of the side walls of the rear end of the cabinet frame and for vertically abutting joint two of the ODCC busbars (intended use); and a butt cross beam (see above annotated figure 1 of D5) transversely connected between the two side walls of the rear end of the cabinet frame and for vertically abutting joint two of the OCP busbars (intended use).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further equip the server cabinet of D1/D2/D4 with a butt block provided at a middle part in the height direction of the side walls of the rear end of the cabinet frame and for vertically abutting joint two of the ODCC busbars; and a butt cross beam transversely connected between the two side walls of the rear end of the cabinet frame and for vertically abutting joint two of the OCP busbars, as suggested by D5, to achieve busbar/cable managing purposes.
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 HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6PM..
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, Imani N 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 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.
/HUNG Q DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights