DETAILED ACTION
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 4, 13, 18 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first width" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first width" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the first region of the adapter bracket" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since the first region is part of the second hole which is part of the mainboard mounting plate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (20210360812).
Regarding Claim 1: Chen teaches an adapter bracket (440), comprising: a first portion (portion from right to left shown best in fig. 11 up to element 448), comprising a protruding portion (448) extending from a first bottom surface of the first portion in a direction perpendicular to the first bottom surface (fig. 11) a second portion (portion from left to right shown best in fig. 11 up to before where element 442 is located) , having an elevation with respect to the first bottom surface of the first portion (fig. 11), the second portion comprising a first hole (area where 460 is located); and a third portion (portion between first and second portions best shown in fig. 11), extending between the first portion and the second portion (Fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 9: Chen teaches the first portion further comprises a recess (443) from a top surface of the first portion (fig. 11).
Claim(s) 1, 10, 11, and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiu (2012/0145723).
Regarding Claim 1: Chiu teaches an adapter bracket (30), comprising: a first portion (312), comprising a protruding portion (311) extending from a first bottom surface of the first portion in a direction perpendicular to the first bottom surface (311 protrudes downward with a thickness); a second portion (313), having an elevation with respect to the first bottom surface of the first portion (fig. 2), the second portion comprising a first hole (314); and a third portion (middle ring portion best shown in fig. 2 between 312 and 313), extending between the first portion and the second portion (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 10: Chiu teaches an electronic device, comprising: a chassis (12); a mainboard module (fig. 1), comprising: a mainboard mounting plate (20); and a mainboard (paragraph [0004]), mounted to the mainboard mounting plate (paragraph [0004]); and an adapter bracket (30), mounted on the chassis (fig. 1), wherein the mainboard module is mounted to the chassis via the adapter bracket (fig. 1) by sliding the mainboard module along a first direction perpendicular to a normal of a first top surface of the chassis (figs. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 11: Chiu teaches the adapter bracket comprises: a first portion (312), comprising a protruding portion extending from a first bottom surface of the first portion in a direction perpendicular to the first bottom surface (311 protrudes downward with a thickness); a second portion (313), having an elevation with respect to the first bottom surface of the first portion (fig. 2), the second portion comprising a first hole (314); and a third portion (middle ring portion best shown in fig. 2 between 312 and 313), extending between the first portion and the second portion (fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 13: Chiu teaches the second portion comprises a first segment (bottom edge segment of the second portion best seen in fig. 2) and a second segment (top edge segment of the second portion best seen in fig. 2), and the first segment has the first width (fig. 2), and the second segment has a second width narrower than the first width (fig. 2 shows the beveled edge with the top edge being narrower than the bottom edge of the first segment).
Regarding Claim 14: Chiu teaches a first nut member (inner walls of 314, paragraph [0013]) and a positioning hole (111, 112) are disposed on the chassis (fig. 1), and the adapter bracket is mounted to the chassis by placing the protruding portion in the positioning hole (figs. 1 and 3) and tightening a fastener (32) through the first hole and the first nut member (figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding Claim 15: Chiu teaches the mainboard mounting plate comprises a second hole (21) having a first region (211), a second region (first part of 212 in fig. 1), and a third region (second part of 212 in fig. 1), and dimensions of the first region are larger than those of the adapter bracket (fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 16: Chiu teaches the first region has a third width and a third length (figs. 1 and 3), and the third region has a fourth width and a fourth length (figs. 1 and 3), wherein the third width is greater than the fourth width (figs. 1 and 3), and the third length is longer than the fourth length (figs. 1 and 3), wherein the second region extends between the first region and the third region (figs. 1 and 3), and has a fifth length shorter than the fourth length (figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding Claim 17: Chiu teaches when the mainboard module is placed on the adapter bracket, the adapter bracket passes through the first region and the second region (figs. 1 and 3), and a first bottom surface of the mainboard mounting plate is in contact with the first top surface of the chassis (figs. 1 and 3), and the second portion of the adapter bracket is entirely above the mainboard mounting plate with respect to the first top surface of the chassis (figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding Claim 18 (as best understood): Chiu teaches the first region of the adapter bracket comprises a first shoulder portion (beveled edges of the third portion shown in fig. 2) and a second shoulder portion (beveled edges of the third portion shown in fig. 2) on a first side neighboring to the second region (fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 19: Chiu teaches when the mainboard module slides along the first direction perpendicular to the normal of the first top surface of the chassis (figs. 1 and 3), the first shoulder portion and the second shoulder portion cover at least a portion of the mainboard mounting plate (figs. 1 and 3) to limit displacement of the mainboard module along a second direction parallel to the normal (figs. 1 and 3).
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.
Claim(s) 2-8, 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu (2012/0145723).
Regarding Claim 2: Chiu lacks a specific teaching of the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion substantially have a first thickness.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Chiu by having the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion substantially have a first thickness in order to allow for a more uniform bracket in order to decrease design complications or lower production costs while still allowing for a strong connection and hold between the mainboard module and the chassis since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the already disclosed portions of the adapter bracket. It has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237.
Regarding Claim 3: Chiu lacks a specific teaching of the first portion and the third portion have a first width.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Chiu by having the first portion and the third portion have a first width in order to allow for a more uniform bracket in order to decrease design complications or lower production costs while still allowing for a strong connection and hold between the mainboard module and the chassis since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the already disclosed portions of the adapter bracket. It has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237.
Regarding Claim 4: Chiu teaches the second portion comprises a first segment (bottom edge segment of the second portion best seen in fig. 2) and a second segment (top edge segment of the second portion best seen in fig. 2), and the first segment has the first width (fig. 2), and the second segment has a second width narrower than the first width (fig. 2 shows the beveled edge with the top edge being narrower than the bottom edge of the first segment).
Regarding Claim 5: Chiu teaches wherein a first hole (314) is disposed across the first segment and the second segment (figs. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 6: Chiu teaches wherein the first hole comprises: an upper side wall (figs. 1-3), connected to a top surface of the second portion (figs. 1-3); and a lower side wall (figs. 1-3), communicating with the upper side wall and connected to a bottom surface of the second portion (figs. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 7: Chiu teaches wherein the upper side wall tilts inward from the top surface of the second portion to the lower side wall (the interior beveled edges best shown in fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 8: Chiu lacks a specific teaching of the protruding portion is cylinder-shaped.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Chiu by having the protruding portion is cylinder-shaped in order to allow for a more uniform bracket in order to decrease design complications or lower production costs while still allowing for a strong connection and hold between the mainboard module and the chassis since such a modification would involve a mere change in shape of the already disclosed portions of the adapter bracket. It has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding Claim 12: Chiu lacks a specific teaching of the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion substantially have a first thickness.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Chiu by having the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion substantially have a first thickness in order to allow for a more uniform bracket in order to decrease design complications or lower production costs while still allowing for a strong connection and hold between the mainboard module and the chassis since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the already disclosed portions of the adapter bracket. It has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237.
Regarding Claim 20: Chiu lacks a specific teaching of wherein there is a margin between a bottom surface of the mainboard and a second top surface of the second portion of the adapter bracket.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Chiu by having wherein there is a margin between a bottom surface of the mainboard and a second top surface of the second portion of the adapter bracket in order to allow for a more uniform bracket in order to decrease design complications or lower production costs while still allowing for a strong connection and hold between the mainboard module and the chassis since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the already disclosed portions of the adapter bracket. It has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY MICHAEL HAUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-9087. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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 Hayman can be reached at 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.
/ANTHONY M HAUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841