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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-9, drawn to an information handling system, classified in A47B2097/006.CPC.
II. Claims 10-16, drawn to a method of managing airflow, classified in H05K7/20.CPC.
III. Claims 17-20, drawn to a bezel, classified in G06F1/181.CPC.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product such as a product that only has one a bezel that comprises only one release button.
Inventions I and III are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the combination does not require a grill. The subcombination has separate utility such as displaying logos on the bezel for advertising purposes.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Inventions III and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product such as a product that does not require a grill or a product that requires a plurality of information handling systems and a plurality of bezels.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions each require a different field of search and/or different text inquires.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Mr. Robert Holland on 09/15/2025 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Invention I, claims 1-9. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: for better claim construction and consistency throughout the claims the examiner suggests the following amendment:
Claim 2: -- The information handling system of Claim 1 wherein:
the of the second bezel and the release buttons of the second bezel are configured to interact through flexing of at pivots of the contiguous material; and when the release buttons are pressed in, the flexing at the pivots of the contiguous material rotates the release buttons to retract the latch members inward . -- Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “interact through flexing” appears to be a method step claimed within an apparatus claim. Further, it is unclear which “latch members” and which “release buttons” claim 2 is referring to in line 5 of claim 2. Is claim 2, line 5 referring to the latch members of the first bezel or the latch members of the second bezel? Is claim 2, line 5 referring to the release buttons of the first bezel or the release buttons of the second bezel? The examiner suggests the following amendments for claim 2:
Claim 2: -- The information handling system of Claim 1 wherein:
the of the second bezel and the release buttons of the second bezel are configured to interact through flexing of at pivots of the contiguous material; and when the release buttons are pressed in, the flexing at the pivots of the contiguous material rotates the release buttons of the second bezel to retract the latch members of the second bezel inward
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear which “latch members” and which “release buttons” claim 3 is referring to. Is claim 3 referring to the latch members of the first bezel or the latch members of the second bezel? Is claim 3 referring to the release buttons of the first bezel or the release buttons of the second bezel? The examiner suggests the following amendments for claim 3:
Claim 3: -- The information handling system of Claim 2 wherein the latch members of the second bezel are located between the release buttons of the second bezel and the pivots of the second bezel.—Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the pivots" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear which “release buttons” claim 4 is referring to. Is claim 4 referring to the release buttons of the first bezel or the release buttons of the second bezel? The examiner suggests the following amendments for claim 4:
Claim 4: -- The information handling system of Claim [[1]] 3 wherein the second bezel
integrates in the material spring members extending inward from the release buttons of the second bezel to support the pivots distal the release button of the second bezel.—Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the following limitation “a second of the second bezel” is unclear and confusing. The examiner suggest the following amendment for claim 7:
Claim 7: -- The information handling system of Claim 4 further comprising: a second information handling coupled to the rack; and a third bezel , wherein the third bezel is identical to the second bezel.—Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear which “release buttons” claim 8 is referring to. Is claim 8 referring to the release buttons of the first bezel or the release buttons of the second bezel? The examiner suggests the following amendments for claim 8:
Claim 8: -- The information handling system of Claim 4 wherein the pivots are formed with injection molded plastic to rotate the release buttons of the second bezel at spacing around the release buttons of the second bezel down to the spring members.—Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5-6 and 9 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor 2015/0086017; Lewis 9,078,349; and Wang 10,251,299.
Regarding claim 1, Taylor discloses an information handling system comprising:
a rack (Fig 1, #12) having plural slots (Fig 1, #16), each of the plural slots sized to accept an information handling system housing;
an information handling system (Fig 1, #14) inserted into at least one of the plural slots [0025]; a first bezel coupled to the rack (Fig 1, #12) to secure the information handling system (Fig 1, #14) to the rack (Fig 1, #12) [0027].
PNG
media_image1.png
628
1204
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Taylor has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach a first bezel coupled to the rack at the information handling system; the first bezel having latch members extending from opposing ends to couple to the rack, a release button on each of the opposing sides to release the latch members in response to a press inward at the release buttons, and a lock having an unlocked position that allows actuation of the release buttons and a locked position that prevents actuation of the release buttons, the release buttons separate from the latch members and interacting through plural assembled pieces; and
a second bezel coupled to the rack at a one of the plural slots having an opening
without an information handling system, the second bezel having the latch
members extending from the opposing ends to couple to the rack and the
release button on each of the opposing sides to release the latch members
in response to a press inward at the release buttons, the second bezel
coupling over the opening with a material contiguous with the release
buttons and latch members.
Lewis discloses a first bezel (annotated Fig 1 below) coupled to a rack (Fig 1, #10) at an information handling system (Fig 1, #12, top); the first bezel (annotated Fig 1 below) having latch members (col 2, line 66 – col 3, line 3) (col 3, lines 34-39) extending from opposing ends to couple to the rack (Fig 1, #10); and a second bezel (annotated Fig 1 below) coupled to the rack (Fig 1, #10) at an opening (annotated Fig 1 below) without an information handling system (as shown in Fig 1), the second bezel (annotated Fig 1 below) having the latch members (col 2, line 66 – col 3, line 3) (col 3, lines 34-39) extending from the opposing ends to couple to the rack (Fig 1, #10).
PNG
media_image2.png
768
1029
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wang discloses an information handling system (Fig 2, #200) comprising a first bezel (Fig 2, #214) coupled to a chassis rack (Fig 2, #202) at the information handling system (Fig 2, #200); the first bezel (Fig 2, #214) having latch members (Fig 4, ##220a & #220b) extending from an end of the first bezel (Fig 2, #214) to couple to the rack (Fig 2, #202), a release button (Fig 4, #218) on the end of the first bezel (Fig 2, #214) to or capable of releasing the latch members (Fig 4, #220a & #220b) in response to a press inward at the release button (Fig 4, #218) (col 12, lines 4-11), and a lock (Fig 4, #216) having an unlocked position that allows actuation of the release buttons (col 13, lines 46-50) and a locked position that prevents actuation of the release buttons (col 13, lines 46-50), the release button (Fig 4, #218) is separate from the latch members (Fig 4, #220 a & #220b) and interacting through plural assembled pieces (Fig 7, #602 & #610a); wherein the bezel (Fig 2, #214) coupling over the rack (Fig 2, #202) with a material contiguous (i.e. touch each other) with the release button (Fig 4, #218) and latch members (Fig 4, #220a & #220b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the bezel (Taylor, Fig 2) of Taylor with the bezels (Lewis, Fig 1, #18) of Lewis by attaching opposing ends (Lewis, Fig 1, #20) of a first bezel (Lewis, annotated Fig 1 above) to the rack (Taylor, Fig 1, #12) of Taylor at the slot (Taylor, annotated Fig 1 above) of Taylor that has an information handling system (Taylor, Fig 1, #14) and attaching opposing ends (Lewis, Fig 1, #20) of a second bezel (Lewis, annotated Fig 1 above) to the rack (Taylor, Fig 1, #12) of Taylor at the slot (Taylor, annotated Fig 1 above) of Taylor that is empty without an information handling system (Lewis, Col 1, lines 19-27) because the substitution of one known bezel type for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Further, the bezels (Lewis, annotated Fig 1 above) of Lewis will make the rack (Taylor, Fig 1, #12) of Taylor more aesthetically appealing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the attachment means (Lewis, Fig 1, #20, #22, & #32) of the opposing ends (left and right end) of the bezels (Lewis, annotated Fig 1 above) of Lewis each to have a release button (Wang, Fig 4, #218), latch members (Wang, Fig 4, #220a & #220b) because the substitution of one known bezel connection for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Further the release button (Wang, Fig 4, #218) connection of modified Taylor will enable the bezels (Lewis, annotated Fig 1 above) to be more easily attached and removed from the rack (Taylor, Fig 1, #12) of Taylor.
The combination of Taylor, Lewis, and Wang discussed above will result in the second bezel (Lewis, annotated Fig 1 above) coupled to the rack (Taylor, Fig 1, #12) at a one of the plural slots (Taylor, annotated Fig 1 above) having an opening without an information handling system (Taylor, annotated Fig 1 above), the second bezel (Lewis, annotated Fig 1 above) having the latch members (Wang, Fig 4, #220a & #220b) extending from the opposing ends to couple to the rack (Taylor, Fig 1, #12) and the release button (Wang, Fig 4, #218) on each of the opposing sides to or capable of releasing the latch members (Wang, Fig 4, #220a & #220b) in response to a press inward at the release buttons (Wang, Fig 4, #218).
It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the second bezel (Lewis, annotated Fig 1 above) to couple over the opening (Taylor, annotated Fig 1 above, empty slot) with a material contiguous with the release buttons (Wang, Fig 4, #218) and latch members (Wang, Fig 4, #220a & #220b) in order to make the bezels of modified Taylor more consistent and aesthetically appealing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN K BARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7:30pm.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 571-272-8227. 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.
/DEVIN K BARNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631