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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed March 2, 2026 have been entered. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every Claim Objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Action mailed January 27, 2026. However, Applicant’s amendments have not overcome each and every 112(b) rejection. Claims 1-20 remain pending, but stand rejected for the reasons detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues mounting plates 124 of L-shaped members 120 of the rails 1, 11-15 (see Figures 1 and 14) cannot be characterized as being “secured” to server 300 (Arguments, pages 10-12). Without additional structural limitations defining the means by which the movable device securing members are “secured” to the server, Examiner maintains, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, Yokosawa (US Publication No. 2014/0144858) teaches mounting plates 124 of L-shaped members 120 being secured to servers 300, 301. Under BRI, the term “secured” is being interpreted as joined, connected, attached, linked, supported, and/or mounted. With these common synonyms in mind, Examiner submits/maintains mounting plates 124 are joined, connected, attached, linked, supported, and/or mounted to the housing of the connected server. Paragraph [0088] explicitly states, “the server 300 is mounted on the mounting plate 124.” Examiner also submits the server is “secured” from falling in a vertical direction due to gravity by virtue of mounting plates 124. Examiner recommends clarifying the structure of the securing subsystem of the server, and how the securing subsystem engages with the movable device securing members.
PNG
media_image1.png
718
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Under an alternative interpretation/rejection below, Examiner submits Beane (US Patent No. 6669029) teaches a device securing member (brackets 10, including component mounting portions 12) being configured to engage and secure to a securing subsystem (col. 4, portion of mounted electronic devices 60 engaged with mounted implements) of a server device (electronic devices 60; see Figure 2 reproduced below). In the event Applicant disagrees with Examiner’s interpretation of Yokosawa, Examiner submits Yokosawa in view of Cox and Beane teaches the newly amended claims. Again, Examiner recommends clarifying the structure of the securing subsystem of the server, and how the securing subsystem engages with the movable device securing members.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 should be labeled (Currently Amended).
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 5-20 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.
Claim 5 claims, “wherein the engagement of the second moveable device securing member with the multi-RU device moves the second moveable device securing member such that the second moveable device securing member no longer extend from the second multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem.” However, this limitation is unclear considering Figure 28 shows moveable device securing system 2012 extending rearwardly from front plate 2006 of base 2002 in the claimed position (see also Paragraph [0108] of instant application). Examiner recommends clarifying that a portion of the moveable device securing system no longer extends from a portion of the rack coupling subsystem, as stated at the end of Paragraph [0108]. For the purposes of examination, the cited limitation will be interpreted as, “wherein the engagement of the second moveable device securing member with the multi-RU device moves the second moveable device securing member such that a portion of the second moveable device securing member no longer extends from a portion of the second multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem.”
Claims 6-7 are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 8 claims, “in response to engagement with the multi-RU device when the multi-RU device is moved into the first 1RU device housing and the second 1RU device housing with the securing subsystem on the multi-RU device located in the second 1RU device housing, such that moveable device securing member no longer extends from the base via the securing member aperture and allows the multi-RU device to be secured to the rack.” However, this limitation is unclear considering Figure 28 shows moveable device securing system 2012 extending rearwardly from front plate 2006 of base 2002 in the claimed position (see also Paragraph [0108] of instant application). Examiner recommends clarifying that a portion of the moveable device securing system no longer extends from a portion of the base, as stated at the end of Paragraph [0108]. For the purposes of examination, the cited limitation will be interpreted as, “in response to engagement with the multi-RU device when the multi-RU device is moved into the first 1RU device housing and the second 1RU device housing with the securing subsystem on the multi-RU device located in the second 1RU device housing, such that a portion of moveable device securing member no longer extends from a portion of the base via the securing member aperture and allows the multi-RU device to be secured to the rack.”
Claims 9-13 are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 13 recites the limitations "the base" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 13 should likely be made dependent on claim 8, and will be treated as such for the purposes of examination.
Claim 14 claims, “such that first moveable device securing member no longer extends from the first multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system and allows the multi-RU device to be secured to the rack.” However, this limitation is unclear considering Figure 28 shows moveable device securing system 2012 extending rearwardly from front plate 2006 of base 2002 in the claimed position (see also Paragraph [0108] of instant application). Examiner recommends clarifying that a portion of the moveable device securing member no longer extends from a portion of the rack coupling subsystem, as stated at the end of Paragraph [0108]. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as, “such that a portion of the first moveable device securing member no longer extends from a portion of the first multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system and allows the multi-RU device to be secured to the rack.”
Claims 15-20 are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 17 recites the limitations "the base" and “the securing member aperture” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokosawa (US Publication No. 2014/0144858) in view of Cox (US Publication 2007/0158280).
Regarding claim 1, Yokosawa discloses a multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system, comprising: a rack (comprised of rack supports 2A-2D) defining a first 1 Rack Unit (1RU) device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L, 12R; NOTE: see Figures 22-23 of instant application, where first and second RU device housings simply correspond to a portion of the rack accommodating/housing the first and second RU devices) and a second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 11L, 11R; see NOTE above) that is located immediately adjacent the first 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L, 12R); a first multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem (mounting rails 12L, 12R) that is coupled to the rack (2A-2D) adjacent the first 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L, 12R), wherein the first multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem (12L, 12R) includes a first moveable device securing member (L-shaped members 102 of 12L, 12R) that is configured to engage and secure to a securing subsystem on a multi-Rack Unit (multi-RU) device (housing of server 300, 301; see Figures 14 and 17 and Paragraph [0088], where 300, 301 is “mounted to mounting plate 124” of 102) to secure the multi-RU device (300, 301) to the rack (2A-2D) when the multi-RU device (300, 301) is moved into the first 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L, 12R) and the second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 11L, 11R); and a second multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem (11L, 11R) that is coupled to the rack (2A-2D) adjacent the second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 11L, 11R), wherein the second multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem (11L, 11R) includes a second moveable device securing member (L-shaped members 102 of 11L, 11R) that is configured to move, in response to engagement with the multi-RU device (300, 301) when the multi-RU device (300, 301) is moved into the first 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L, 12R) and the second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 11L, 11L), in order to allow the multi-RU device (300, 301) to be secured to the rack (2A-2D) via the first moveable device securing member (102 of 12L, 12R) on the first multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem (12L, 12R).
While Yokosawa suggests first and second device housings being 1RU, Cox explicitly teaches a first and second device housing (portions of sidewalls 14 between rails 26) being 1RU (see Paragraph [0025] in Cox).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second device housings of Yokosawa to be 1RU as taught in Cox, considering the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed height because a 1RU height is a standard dimension designed to ensure the space within a server rack is efficiently utilized (see Paragraphs [0004]-[0006], [0025]-[0028] in Cox).
Regarding claim 2, Yokosawa in view of Cox teaches the multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system of claim 1, and further teaches (in Cox) wherein the multi-RU device is a 2 Rack Unit (2RU) device (see Paragraph [0028]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the size of the multi-RU device of Yokosawa to be 2RU, as taught in Cox, considering the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed height because a 2RU height is a standard server dimension designed to ensure the space within a server rack is efficiently utilized (see Paragraphs [0004]-[0006], [0025]-[0028] in Cox).
Regarding claim 3, Yokosawa in view of Cox teaches the multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system of claim 1, and further teaches (in Yokosawa) wherein the rack (2A-2D) defines a third 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 1L, 1R; see NOTE above) that is located immediately adjacent the second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 11L, 11R) and the multi-RU device (300, 301) includes a device height that is greater than 2RU (see Figures 14, 17 and Paragraph [0104]), and wherein the multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system further comprises: a third multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem (1L, 1R) that is coupled to the rack (2A-2D) adjacent the third 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 1L, 1R), wherein the third multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem (1L, 1R) includes a third moveable device securing member (L-shaped members 102 of 1L, 1R) that is configured to move, in response to engagement with the multi-RU device (300, 301) when the multi-RU device (300, 301) is moved into the first 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L, 12R), the second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 11L, 11R), and the third 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 1L, 1R), in order to allow the multi-RU device (300, 301) to be secured to the rack (2A-2D) via the first moveable device securing member (L-shaped members 102 of 12L, 12R) on the first multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem (12L, 12R).
Regarding claim 4, Yokosawa in view of Cox teaches the multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system of claim 1, wherein the second moveable device securing member (102 of 11L, 11R) on the second multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem (11L, 11R) is configured, following the removal of the multi-RU device (300, 301) from the first 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L, 12R) and the second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 11L, 11R), to engage and secure to a securing subsystem (housing of server 300, 301; see Figures 14 and 17 and Paragraph [0088], where 300, 301 is “mounted to mounting plate 124” of 102) on a 1RU device (see Paragraph [0028] in Cox) to secure the 1RU device to the rack (2) when the 1RU device is moved into the second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 11L, 11R).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the 1U device of Cox to the second 1RU device housing of the rack of Yokosawa as previously modified by Cox, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of storing standard rack height servers within a rack (see Paragraphs [0004]-[0006], [0025]-[0028] in Cox).
Regarding claim 5 (as best understood), Yokosawa in view of Cox teaches the multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system of claim 1, wherein the second moveable device securing member (102 of 11L, 11R) on the second multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem (11L, 11R) includes a spring system (leaf springs 105) that biases the second moveable device securing member (102 of 11L, 11R) to extend from the second multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem (11L, 11R), and wherein the engagement of the second moveable device securing member (102 of 11L, 11R) with the multi-RU device (300, 301) moves the second moveable device securing member (102 of 11L, 11R) such that a portion of the second moveable device securing member (102 of 11L, 11R) no longer extends from a portion of the second multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem (11L, 11R; where an outer portion of 102 no longer extends inward relative to 101; where 300, 301 is also capable of being pressed against 101 of 11L, 11R such that 102 does not extend inward relative to 101, as shown in Figure 28 of the instant application).
Regarding claim 7, Yokosawa in view of Cox teaches the multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system of claim 5, and further teaches (in Yokosawa) wherein the spring system (105) includes a flat spring (Paragraph [0068], spring 105 being a leaf spring).
Regarding claim 8 (as best understood), Yokosawa discloses a multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem, comprising: a base (plate-shaped members 101 of 11L/R, 12L/R); a rack coupling subsystem (coupling members 104 of 11L/R, 12L/R) that is provided on the base (101) and that is configured to couple the base (101) to a rack (rack supports 2A-2D); a securing member aperture (recess 112 of 11L/R, 12L/R) defined by the base (101); and a moveable device securing member (L-shaped members 120 of 11L/R, 12L/R) that extends from the base (101) via the securing member aperture (112), wherein the moveable device securing member (120 of 11L/R, 12L/R) is configured, when the base (101) is coupled to the rack (2) adjacent a first 1 Rack Unit (1RU) device housing that is defined by the rack (portion of 2 connected to 12L/R; see NOTE above) immediately adjacent a second 1RU device housing that is defined by the rack (portion of 2 connected to 11L/R; see NOTE above), to: engage and secure to a securing subsystem on a multi-Rack Unit (multi-RU) device (housing of server 300, 301; see Figures 14 and 17 and Paragraph [0088], where 300, 301 is “mounted to mounting plate 124” of 102) to secure the multi-RU device (300, 301) to the rack (2) when the multi-RU device (300, 301) is moved into the first 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L/R) and the second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 11L/R) with the securing subsystem (lateral edges of 300, 301) on the multi-RU device (300, 301) located in the first 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L/R); and move, in response to engagement with the multi-RU device (300, 301) when the multi-RU device (300, 301) is moved into the first 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L/R) and the second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 11L/R) with the securing subsystem on the multi-RU device (edges of 300, 301) located in the second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 11L/R), such that a portion of the moveable device securing member (120 of 11L/R; see Figure 14) no longer extends from a portion of the base (101) via the securing member aperture (112) and allows the multi-RU device (300, 301) to be secured to the rack (2; where an outer portion of 102 no longer extends inward relative to 101; where 300, 301 is also capable of being pressed against 101 of 11L, 11R such that 102 does not extend inward relative to 101, as shown in Figure 28 of the instant application).
Yokosawa suggests, but does not explicitly disclose, the first and second device housings being 1RU, and wherein the moveable device securing member is configured to engage and secure to a securing subsystem on a 1RU device to secure the 1RU device to the rack when the 1RU device is moved into the first 1RU device housing.
However, Cox explicitly teaches a first and second device housing (portions of sidewalls 14 between rails 26) being 1RU (see Paragraph [0025] in Cox), and wherein a moveable device securing member (foldable rails 26, corresponding to 102 in Yokosawa) is configured to engage and secure to a securing subsystem on a 1RU device (portion of housing of server component mounted to rails 26; see Paragraph [0025] in Cox; corresponding to housing of server 300, 301 in Yokosawa; see Figures 14 and 17 and Paragraph [0088] in Yokosawa, where 300, 301 is “mounted to mounting plate 124” of 102) to secure the 1RU device to the rack (comprised of posts 12 and portion of sidewalls 24 between 26) when the 1RU device is moved into the first 1RU device housing (portion of sidewalls 24 between 26).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the 1RU device of Cox to the rack of Yokosawa, and to have modified the first and second device housings of Yokosawa to be 1RU as taught in Cox, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of storing standard rack height servers within a rack, and considering the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed height because a 1RU height is a standard dimension designed to ensure the space within a server rack is efficiently utilized (see Paragraphs [0004]-[0006], [0025]-[0028] in Cox).
Regarding claim 9, Yokosawa in view of Cox teaches the multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem of claim 8, and further teaches (in Cox) wherein the multi-RU device is a 2 Rack Unit (2RU) device (see Paragraph [0028]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the size of the multi-RU device of Yokosawa to be 2RU, as taught in Cox, considering the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed height because a 2RU height is a standard server dimension designed to ensure the space within a server rack is efficiently utilized (see Paragraphs [0004]-[0006], [0025]-[0028] in Cox).
Regarding claim 10, Yokosawa in view of Cox teaches the multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem of claim 8, and further teaches (in Yokosawa) wherein the moveable device securing member (102) includes a spring system (105) that biases the moveable device securing member (102) to extend from the base (101 of 11L/R, 12L/R) via the securing member aperture (112).
Regarding claim 12, Yokosawa in view of Cox teaches the multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem of claim 10, and further teaches (in Yokosawa) wherein the spring system (105) includes a flat spring (Paragraph [0068], spring 105 being a leaf spring).
Regarding claim 14 (as best understood), Yokosawa discloses a method for coupling multiple-rack-unit-devices to a rack (comprised of rack supports 2A-2D), comprising: engaging and securing to, by first moveable device securing member (L-shaped member 102 of 11L, 11R) that extends from a first multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system (mounting rail 11L, 11R) that is coupled to the rack (2) adjacent a first 1 Rack Unit (1RU) device housing (portion of 2 connected to 11L, 11R; see NOTE above) that is defined by the rack (2) immediately adjacent a second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L, 12R; see NOTE above) that is defined by the rack (2); moving, by the first moveable device securing member (102 of 11L, 11R) on the first multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system (11L, 11R) in response to engagement with a multi-RU device (300, 301) when the multi-RU device (300, 301) is moved into the first 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 11L, 11R) and the second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L, 12R) with a securing subsystem on the multi-RU device (edges of 300, 301) located in the second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L, 12R), such that a portion of first moveable device securing member (102 of 11L, 11R) no longer extends from a portion of the first multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system (11L, 11R) and allows the multi-RU device (300, 301) to be secured to the rack (2; where an outer portion of 102 no longer extends inward relative to 101; wherein 102 no longer extends in a forward direction relative to the 101 of 11L, 11R - see Figures 1-2, 14, and 17).
Yokosawa suggests, but does not explicitly disclose, the first and second device housings being 1RU, and a securing subsystem on a 1RU device to secure the 1RU device to the rack when the 1RU device is moved into the first 1RU device housing; disengaging, by the first moveable device securing member that extends from the first multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system, the securing subsystem on the 1RU device to release the 1RU device from the rack to allow the 1RU device to be removed from the first 1RU device housing.
However, Cox explicitly teaches a first and second device housing (portions of sidewalls 14 between rails 26) being 1RU (see Paragraph [0025] in Cox), and a securing subsystem on a 1RU device (portion of housing of server component mounted to rails 26; see Paragraph [0025] in Cox; corresponding to housing of server 300, 301 in Yokosawa; see Figures 14 and 17 and Paragraph [0088] in Yokosawa, where 300, 301 is “mounted to mounting plate 124” of 102) to secure the 1RU device to the rack (posts 12) when the 1RU device is moved into the first 1RU device housing (portion of 12 connected to 1U device); disengaging, by the first moveable device securing member (26, corresponding to 102 in Yokosawa) that extends from the first multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system (portion of sidewalls 24 connected to 26, corresponding to 11, 12 in Yokosawa), the securing subsystem on the 1RU device to release (portion of housing of server component mounted to rails 26; see Paragraph [0025] in Cox; corresponding to housing of server 300, 301 in Yokosawa; see Figures 14 and 17 and Paragraph [0088] in Yokosawa, where 300, 301 is “mounted to mounting plate 124” of 102) the 1RU device from the rack (12) to allow the 1RU device to be removed from the first 1RU device housing (portion of 12 connected to 1U device).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the 1RU device of Cox to the rack of Yokosawa, and to have modified the first and second device housings of Yokosawa to be 1RU as taught in Cox, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of storing standard height rack components within a rack, and considering the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed height because a 1RU height is a standard dimension designed to ensure the space within a server rack is efficiently utilized (see Paragraphs [0004]-[0006], [0025]-[0028] in Cox).
Regarding claim 15, Yokosawa in view of Cox teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising: engaging and securing to, by second moveable device securing member (102 of 12L, 12R) that extends from a second multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system (12L, 12R) that is coupled to the rack (2) adjacent the second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L, 12R) that is defined by the rack (2), the securing subsystem on the multi-RU device (edges of 300, 301) to secure the multi-RU device (300, 301) to the rack (2) when the multi-RU device (300, 301) is moved into the first 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 11L, 11R) and the second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L, 12R) with the securing subsystem on the multi-RU device (edges of 300, 301) located in the second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L, 12R).
Regarding claim 16, Yokosawa in view of Cox teaches the method of claim 14, and further teaches (in Cox) wherein the multi-RU device is a 2 Rack Unit (2RU) device (see Paragraph [0028]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the size of the multi-RU device of Yokosawa to be 2RU, as taught in Cox, considering the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed height because a 2RU height is a standard server dimension designed to ensure the space within a server rack is efficiently utilized (see Paragraphs [0004]-[0006], [0025]-[0028] in Cox).
Regarding claim 17 (as best understood), Yokosawa in view of Cox teaches the method of claim 14, and further teaches (in Yokosawa) wherein the first moveable device securing member (102 of 11L, 11R) includes a spring system (springs 105) that biases the first moveable device securing member (102 of 11L, 11R) to extend from the base (101 of 11L, 11R) via the securing member aperture (112 of 11L, 11R).
Regarding claim 19, Yokosawa in view of Cox teaches the method of claim 17, and further teaches (in Yokosawa) wherein the spring system (105) includes a flat spring (Paragraph [0068], spring 105 being a flat spring).
Claims 6, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokosawa (US Publication No. 2014/0144858), Cox (US Publication 2007/0158280), and in further view of Peng (US Publication No. 2012/0300410).
Regarding claim 6, Yokosawa in view of Cox teaches the multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system of claim 5, but does not teach wherein the spring system includes a torsion spring.
However, Peng teaches a multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem (supporting structure 40) including a spring system (torsion spring 42) that biases the second moveable device securing member (block 41, corresponding to 102 in Yokosawa), wherein the spring system (42) includes a torsion spring (see Paragraphs [0020]-[0023]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the leaf springs of Yokosawa as modified by Cox for the torsion springs of Peng, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of extending and retracting a rack coupling system (see Figures 5-6 in Yokosawa; see Figures 2-4 in Peng).
Regarding claim 11, Yokosawa in view of Cox teaches the multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem of claim 10, but does not teach wherein the spring system includes a torsion spring.
However, Peng teaches a multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem (supporting structure 40) including a spring system (torsion spring 42) that biases the second moveable device securing member (block 41, corresponding to 102 in Yokosawa), wherein the spring system (42) includes a torsion spring (see Paragraphs [0020]-[0023]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the leaf springs of Yokosawa as modified by Cox for the torsion springs of Peng, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of extending and retracting a rack coupling system (see Figures 5-6 in Yokosawa; see Figures 2-4 in Peng).
Regarding claim 18, Yokosawa in view of Cox teaches the method of claim 17, but does not teach wherein the spring system includes a torsion spring.
However, Peng teaches a multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem (supporting structure 40) includes a spring system (torsion spring 42) that biases the second moveable device securing member (block 41, corresponding to 102 in Yokosawa), wherein the spring system (42) includes a torsion spring (see Paragraphs [0020]-[0023]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the leaf springs of Yokosawa as modified by Cox for the torsion springs of Peng, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of extending and retracting a rack coupling system (see Figures 5-6 in Yokosawa; see Figures 2-4 in Peng).
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokosawa (US Publication No. 2014/0144858), Cox (US Publication 2007/0158280), and in further view of Henderson (US Publication No. 2010/0140195).
Regarding claim 13 (as best understood), Yokosawa in view of Cox teaches the multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem of claim 8, but does not teach wherein the base includes a rack rail that is configured to receive a device rail on the 1RU device.
However, Henderson teaches a base (rail 106, corresponding to 101 in Yokosawa), wherein the base (101) includes a rack rail (slot 214) that is configured to receive a device rail (guide structures 722) on the 1RU device (IHS 104; see Paragraph [0019]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the rails of Henderson to the base of Yokosawa as modified by Cox. Doing so would have helped provide horizontal, vertical, and/or rotational support to the RU devices (see Paragraph [0023] in Henderson).
Regarding claim 20, Yokosawa in view of Cox teaches the method of claim 14, but does not teach wherein the first multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system includes a rack rail that is configured to receive a device rail on the 1RU device.
However, Henderson teaches a first multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system (rail 106, corresponding to 101 in Yokosawa), wherein the first multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system (101) includes a rack rail (slot 214) that is configured to receive a device rail (guide structures 722) on the 1RU device (IHS 104; see Paragraph [0019]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the rails of Henderson to the base of Yokosawa as modified by Cox. Doing so would have helped provide horizontal, vertical, and/or rotational support to the RU devices (see Paragraph [0023] in Henderson).
Alternatively, claims 1, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokosawa (US Publication No. 2014/0144858) in view of Cox (US Publication 2007/0158280) and Beane (US Publication 6669029).
Regarding claim 1, Yokosawa discloses a multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system, comprising: a rack (comprised of rack supports 2A-2D) defining a first 1 Rack Unit (1RU) device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L, 12R; NOTE: see Figures 22-23 of instant application, where first and second RU device housings simply correspond to a portion of the rack accommodating/housing the first and second RU devices) and a second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 11L, 11R; see NOTE above) that is located immediately adjacent the first 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L, 12R); a first multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem (mounting rails 12L, 12R) that is coupled to the rack (2A-2D) adjacent the first 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L, 12R), wherein the first multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem (12L, 12R) includes a first moveable device securing member (L-shaped members 102 of 12L, 12R) that is configured to engage and secure to a securing subsystem on a multi-Rack Unit (multi-RU) device (housing of server 300, 301; see Figures 14 and 17 and Paragraph [0088], where 300, 301 is “mounted to mounting plate 124” of 102) to secure the multi-RU device (300, 301) to the rack (2A-2D) when the multi-RU device (300, 301) is moved into the first 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L, 12R) and the second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 11L, 11R); and a second multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem (11L, 11R) that is coupled to the rack (2A-2D) adjacent the second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 11L, 11R), wherein the second multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem (11L, 11R) includes a second moveable device securing member (L-shaped members 102 of 11L, 11R) that is configured to move, in response to engagement with the multi-RU device (300, 301) when the multi-RU device (300, 301) is moved into the first 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L, 12R) and the second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 11L, 11L), in order to allow the multi-RU device (300, 301) to be secured to the rack (2A-2D) via the first moveable device securing member (102 of 12L, 12R) on the first multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem (12L, 12R).
While Yokosawa suggests first and second device housings being 1RU, Cox explicitly teaches a first and second device housing (portions of sidewalls 14 between rails 26) being 1RU (see Paragraph [0025] in Cox).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second device housings of Yokosawa to be 1RU as taught in Cox, considering the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed height because a 1RU height is a standard dimension designed to ensure the space within a server rack is efficiently utilized (see Paragraphs [0004]-[0006], [0025]-[0028] in Cox).
While Yokosawa in view of Cox suggests wherein the first movable device securing member is configured to engage and secure to a securing subsystem on a multi-Rack Unit device to secure the multi-RU device to the rack (see Paragraph [0088] in Yokosawa), Beane explicitly teaches wherein a first device securing member (brackets 10, including component mounting portion 12, corresponding to L-shaped members 102 in Yokosawa) is configured to engage and secure to a securing subsystem (col. 4, portion of mounted electronic devices 60 engaged with mounted implements) on a Rack Unit device (component 60) to secure the RU device (60) to a rack (support structure 42).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the securing subsystem, mounting implements, and corresponding mounting apertures of Beane to the rack unit devices and movable device securing members of Yokosawa as modified by Cox. Doing so would have ensured the RU devices remained mounted/latched within the rack until removed by a user (see col. 4 in Beane).
Regarding claim 8 (as best understood), Yokosawa discloses a multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling subsystem, comprising: a base (plate-shaped members 101 of 11L/R, 12L/R); a rack coupling subsystem (coupling members 104 of 11L/R, 12L/R) that is provided on the base (101) and that is configured to couple the base (101) to a rack (rack supports 2A-2D); a securing member aperture (recess 112 of 11L/R, 12L/R) defined by the base (101); and a moveable device securing member (L-shaped members 120 of 11L/R, 12L/R) that extends from the base (101) via the securing member aperture (112), wherein the moveable device securing member (120 of 11L/R, 12L/R) is configured, when the base (101) is coupled to the rack (2) adjacent a first 1 Rack Unit (1RU) device housing that is defined by the rack (portion of 2 connected to 12L/R; see NOTE above) immediately adjacent a second 1RU device housing that is defined by the rack (portion of 2 connected to 11L/R; see NOTE above), to: engage and secure to a securing subsystem on a multi-Rack Unit (multi-RU) device (housing of server 300, 301; see Figures 14 and 17 and Paragraph [0088], where 300, 301 is “mounted to mounting plate 124” of 102) to secure the multi-RU device (300, 301) to the rack (2) when the multi-RU device (300, 301) is moved into the first 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L/R) and the second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 11L/R) with the securing subsystem (lateral edges of 300, 301) on the multi-RU device (300, 301) located in the first 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L/R); and move, in response to engagement with the multi-RU device (300, 301) when the multi-RU device (300, 301) is moved into the first 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L/R) and the second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 11L/R) with the securing subsystem on the multi-RU device (edges of 300, 301) located in the second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 11L/R), such that a portion of the moveable device securing member (120 of 11L/R; see Figure 14) no longer extends from a portion of the base (101) via the securing member aperture (112) and allows the multi-RU device (300, 301) to be secured to the rack (2; where an outer portion of 102 no longer extends inward relative to 101; where 300, 301 is also capable of being pressed against 101 of 11L, 11R such that 102 does not extend inward relative to 101, as shown in Figure 28 of the instant application).
Yokosawa suggests, but does not explicitly disclose, the first and second device housings being 1RU, and wherein the moveable device securing member is configured to engage and secure to a securing subsystem on a 1RU device to secure the 1RU device to the rack when the 1RU device is moved into the first 1RU device housing.
However, Cox explicitly teaches a first and second device housing (portions of sidewalls 14 between rails 26) being 1RU (see Paragraph [0025] in Cox), and wherein a moveable device securing member (foldable rails 26, corresponding to 102 in Yokosawa) is configured to engage and secure to a securing subsystem on a 1RU device (portion of housing of server component mounted to rails 26; see Paragraph [0025] in Cox; corresponding to housing of server 300, 301 in Yokosawa; see Figures 14 and 17 and Paragraph [0088] in Yokosawa, where 300, 301 is “mounted to mounting plate 124” of 102) to secure the 1RU device to the rack (comprised of posts 12 and portion of sidewalls 24 between 26) when the 1RU device is moved into the first 1RU device housing (portion of sidewalls 24 between 26).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the 1RU device of Cox to the rack of Yokosawa, and to have modified the first and second device housings of Yokosawa to be 1RU as taught in Cox, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of storing standard rack height servers within a rack, and considering the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed height because a 1RU height is a standard dimension designed to ensure the space within a server rack is efficiently utilized (see Paragraphs [0004]-[0006], [0025]-[0028] in Cox).
While Yokosawa in view of Cox suggests wherein the movable device securing member is configured to: engaged and secure to a securing subsystem on a 1 RU device to secure the 1 RU device to the rack; and engaged and secure to a securing subsystem on a multi-RU device to secure the 1 RU device to the rack (see Paragraph [0088] in Yokosawa), Beane explicitly teaches wherein a device securing member (brackets 10, including component mounting portion 12, corresponding to L-shaped members 102 in Yokosawa) is configured to: engaged and secure to a securing subsystem (col. 4, portion of mounted electronic devices 60 engaged with mounted implements) on a RU device (electronic device 60) to secure the RU device (60) to a rack (42).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the securing subsystem, mounting implements, and corresponding mounting apertures of Beane to the rack unit devices and movable device securing members of Yokosawa as modified by Cox. Doing so would have ensured the RU devices remained mounted/latched within the rack until removed by a user (see col. 4 in Beane).
Regarding claim 14 (as best understood), Yokosawa discloses a method for coupling multiple-rack-unit-devices to a rack (comprised of rack supports 2A-2D), comprising: engaging and securing to, by first moveable device securing member (L-shaped member 102 of 11L, 11R) that extends from a first multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system (mounting rail 11L, 11R) that is coupled to the rack (2) adjacent a first 1 Rack Unit (1RU) device housing (portion of 2 connected to 11L, 11R; see NOTE above) that is defined by the rack (2) immediately adjacent a second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L, 12R; see NOTE above) that is defined by the rack (2); moving, by the first moveable device securing member (102 of 11L, 11R) on the first multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system (11L, 11R) in response to engagement with a multi-RU device (300, 301) when the multi-RU device (300, 301) is moved into the first 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 11L, 11R) and the second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L, 12R) with a securing subsystem on the multi-RU device (edges of 300, 301) located in the second 1RU device housing (portion of 2 connected to 12L, 12R), such that a portion of first moveable device securing member (102 of 11L, 11R) no longer extends from a portion of the first multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system (11L, 11R) and allows the multi-RU device (300, 301) to be secured to the rack (2; where an outer portion of 102 no longer extends inward relative to 101; wherein 102 no longer extends in a forward direction relative to the 101 of 11L, 11R - see Figures 1-2, 14, and 17).
Yokosawa suggests, but does not explicitly disclose, the first and second device housings being 1RU, and a securing subsystem on a 1RU device to secure the 1RU device to the rack when the 1RU device is moved into the first 1RU device housing; disengaging, by the first moveable device securing member that extends from the first multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system, the 1RU device to release the 1RU device from the rack to allow the 1RU device to be removed from the first 1RU device housing.
However, Cox explicitly teaches a first and second device housing (portions of sidewalls 14 between rails 26) being 1RU (see Paragraph [0025] in Cox), and a securing subsystem on a 1RU device (portion of housing of server component mounted to rails 26; see Paragraph [0025] in Cox; corresponding to housing of server 300, 301 in Yokosawa; see Figures 14 and 17 and Paragraph [0088] in Yokosawa, where 300, 301 is “mounted to mounting plate 124” of 102) to secure the 1RU device to the rack (posts 12) when the 1RU device is moved into the first 1RU device housing (portion of 12 connected to 1U device); disengaging, by the first moveable device securing member (26, corresponding to 102 in Yokosawa) that extends from the first multi-rack-unit-device rack coupling system (portion of sidewalls 24 connected to 26, corresponding to 11, 12 in Yokosawa), the securing subsystem on the 1RU device to release (portion of housing of server component mounted to rails 26; see Paragraph [0025] in Cox; corresponding to housing of server 300, 301 in Yokosawa; see Figures 14 and 17 and Paragraph [0088] in Yokosawa, where 300, 301 is “mounted to mounting plate 124” of 102) the 1RU device from the rack (12) to allow the 1RU device to be removed from the first 1RU device housing (portion of 12 connected to 1U device).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the 1RU device of Cox to the rack of Yokosawa, and to have modified the first and second device housings of Yokosawa to be 1RU as taught in Cox, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of storing standard height rack components within a rack, and considering the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed height because a 1RU height is a standard dimension designed to ensure the space within a server rack is efficiently utilized (see Paragraphs [0004]-[0006], [0025]-[0028] in Cox).
While Yokosawa in view of Cox suggests wherein the movable device securing member is configured to: engaged and secure to a securing subsystem on a 1 RU device to secure the 1 RU device to the rack; and disengaging the securing subsystem on the 1RU device to release the 1RU device from the rack (see Paragraph [0088] in Yokosawa), Beane explicitly teaches wherein a device securing member (brackets 10, including component mounting portion 12, corresponding to L-shaped members 102 in Yokosawa) is configured to: engaged and secure to a securing subsystem (col. 4, portion of mounted electronic devices 60 engaged with mounted implements) on a RU device (electronic device 60) to secure the RU device (60) to a rack (42); and disengaging the securing subsystem (via detaching/unscrewing the mounting implements) on the RU device (60) to release the 1RU device (60) from the rack (42).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the securing subsystem, mounting implements, and corresponding mounting apertures of Beane to the rack unit devices and movable device securing members of Yokosawa as modified by Cox. Doing so would have ensured the RU devices remained mounted/latched within the rack until removed by a user (see col. 4 in Beane).
Conclusion
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 GAGE STEPHEN CRUM whose telephone number is (571)272-3373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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 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.
/GAGE CRUM/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
gsc