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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-2, 10-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Tata et al. (US Patent No. 6487071 B1 and Tata hereinafter)
Regarding Claim 1, Tata discloses (figs. 2-5 and annotated fig below) a computing rack architecture system comprising: a first plate mounted to a computing rack (40); and a top guide plate mounted to the computing rack at a specified distance from the first plate, wherein the first plate, the top guide plate, and sides of the computing rack
PNG
media_image1.png
707
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
comprise an enclosure that is configured to house a plurality of modules (44, 44) of an Information Handling System (IHS), wherein the specified distance is selected so that the enclosure can accommodate a height of the modules when inserted in the enclosure, and wherein the top guide plate is structured to guide (58, 58) the modules into and out of the enclosure.
Regarding Claim 2, Tata discloses (figs. 2-5 and annotated fig below) computing rack architecture system of claim 1, wherein the first plate comprises a bottom support plate structured to support the weight of the modules (fig.2).
Regarding Claim 10, Tata discloses (figs. 2-5 and annotated fig below) a computing rack architecture method comprising: mounting a first plate mounted to a computing rack (40); mounting a top guide plate mounted to the computing rack at a specified distance from the first plate, wherein the first plate, the top guide plate, and sides of the computing rack comprise an enclosure; and inserting a plurality of modules (44, 44) of an Information Handling System (IHS) into the enclosure, wherein the specified distance is selected so that the enclosure can accommodate a height of the modules when inserted in the enclosure, and wherein the top guide plate is structured (58, 58) to guide the modules into and out of the enclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
707
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Tata discloses (figs. 2-5 and annotated fig above) the computing rack architecture method of claim 10, further comprising supporting a weight of the modules using the first plate (fig.2).
Regarding Claim 18, Tata discloses (figs. 2-5 and annotated fig above) n Information Handling System (IHS) comprising: a plurality of modules (44, 44); a first plate mounted to a computing rack (40); and a top guide plate mounted to the computing rack at a specified distance from the first plate, wherein the first plate, the top guide plate, and sides of the computing rack comprise an enclosure that is configured to house the
PNG
media_image1.png
707
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
modules, wherein the specified distance is selected so that the enclosure can accommodate a height of the modules when inserted in the enclosure, and wherein the top guide plate is structured to guide (58, 58) the modules into and out of the enclosure.
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 4-9, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tata et al in view of Tufty et al. (US Patent No. 11452241 B2 and Tufty hereinafter)
Regarding Claim 4, Tata discloses the computing rack architecture system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the computing rack comprises at least one of an Electronics Industries Alliance (EIA) 19 inch rack or an Open Compute Project (OCP) 21 inch rack Tufty teaches wherein the computing rack comprises at least one of an Electronics Industries Alliance (EIA) 19 inch rack or an Open Compute Project (OCP) 21 inch rack (col 1, lines 40-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an open Compute Project rack specifications of Tufty to device of Tata in order to provide a plurality of server module assemblies mounted on the rack at different vertical levels (Tufty and col 1, lines 40-42).
Regarding Claim 5, Tata/Tufty discloses the computing rack architecture system of claim 4. Tufty teaches (figs. 1-15) wherein the modules are compatible with either the EIA 19 inch rack or the OCP 21 inch rack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an open Compute Project rack specifications of Tufty to device of Tata in order to provide a plurality of server module assemblies mounted on the rack at different vertical levels (Tufty and col 1, lines 40-42).
Regarding Claim 6, Tata discloses the computing rack architecture system of claim 1, but fails to disclose an electrical power bus extending horizontally between the sides of the computing rack. Tufty teaches (figs. 1-15) an electrical power bus (28 and 30) extending horizontally between the sides of the computing rack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an open Compute Project rack specifications of Tufty to device of Tata in order to interface with each one of the servers and with the bus bar to direct electrical power from the bus bar into each server (Tufty and col 1, lines 25-30).
PNG
media_image2.png
565
785
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Tata/Tufty discloses the computing rack architecture system of claim 6. Tufty teaches (figs. 1-15) wherein the sides of the computing rack maintain the electrical power bus at a specified distance from the first plate so that a complementary connector (70 mated with 32) on each module can be blind mated with the electrical power bus when the module in inserted into the enclosure (figs. 4-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a complementary connector of Tufty to device of Tata in order to interface with each one of the servers and with the bus bar to direct electrical power from the bus bar into each server (Tufty and col 1, lines 25-30).
Regarding Claim 8, Tata discloses the computing rack architecture system of claim 1, but fails to disclose an inlet Direct Liquid Cooling (DLC) manifold and an outlet DLC manifold extending horizontally between the sides of the computing rack. Tufty teaches (figs. 1-15) an inlet Direct Liquid Cooling (DLC) (48) manifold and an outlet DLC manifold (52) extending horizontally between the sides of the computing rack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine inlet/outlet Direct Liquid Cooling of Tufty to device of Tata in order to provide heat generating electronic computing components in liquid submersion cooled servers and partially or completely submerging the component(s) in a cooling liquid (Tufty and col 7, lines 55-60).
Regarding Claim 9, Tata/Tufty discloses the computing rack architecture system of claim 8. Tufty teaches (figs. 1-15) wherein the sides of the computing rack maintain the inlet and outlet DLC manifold at a specified distance (shows in fig.14) from the first plate so that a pair of complementary hydraulic connectors (212 and 214) on each module can be blind mated with the inlet and outlet DLC manifold when the module in inserted into the enclosure (col 8, lines 10-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a pair of complementary hydraulic connectors of Tufty to device of Tata in order to interface with each one of the servers and with the bus bar to direct electrical power from the bus bar into each server (Tufty and col 1, lines 25-30).
Regarding Claim 13, Tata discloses (figs. 2-5 and annotated fig above) the computing rack architecture method of claim 10, but fails to disclose removing the modules from the enclosure; and inserting the modules in an enclosure of another computing rack, wherein the other computing rack is a different type. However, Tufty teaches (figs. 1-15) removing the modules from the enclosure; and inserting the modules in an enclosure of another computing rack, wherein the other computing rack is a different type (col 5, lines 63-66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a different type of Tufty to device of Tata in order to provide a plurality of server module assemblies mounted on the rack at different type racks (Tufty and col 1, lines 40-42).
Regarding Claim 14, Tata discloses (figs. 2-5 and annotated fig above) the computing rack architecture method of claim 10, but fails to disclose mounting an electrical power bus extending horizontally between the sides of the computing rack. However, Tufty teaches (figs. 1-15) mounting an electrical power bus (28 and 30) extending horizontally between the sides of the computing rack (see annotated fig.4).
PNG
media_image2.png
565
785
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, Tata/Tufty discloses the computing rack architecture method of claim 14. Tufty teaches (figs. 1-15) maintaining, using the sides of the computing rack, the electrical power bus at a specified distance from the first plate so that a complementary connector (70 mated with 32) on each module can be blind mated with the electrical power bus when the module in inserted into the enclosure (figs. 4-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a complementary connector of Tufty to device of Tata in order to interface with each one of the servers and with the bus bar to direct electrical power from the bus bar into each server (Tufty and col 1, lines 25-30).
Regarding Claim 16, Tata discloses the computing rack architecture method of claim 10, but fails to disclose an inlet Direct Liquid Cooling (DLC) manifold and an outlet DLC manifold extending horizontally between the sides of the computing rack. Tufty teaches (figs. 1-15) an inlet Direct Liquid Cooling (DLC) (48) manifold and an outlet DLC manifold (52) extending horizontally between the sides of the computing rack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine inlet/outlet Direct Liquid Cooling of Tufty to device of Tata in order to provide heat generating electronic computing components in liquid submersion cooled servers and partially or completely submerging the component(s) in a cooling liquid (Tufty and col 7, lines 55-60).
Regarding Claim 17, Tata/Tufty discloses the computing rack architecture system method of claim 16. Tufty teaches (figs. 1-15) maintaining, using the sides of the computing rack, the inlet and outlet DLC manifold at a specified distance from the first plate so that a pair of complementary hydraulic connectors (212 and 214) on each module can be blind mated with the inlet and outlet DLC manifold when the module in inserted into the enclosure (col 8, lines 10-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a pair of complementary hydraulic connectors of Tufty to device of Tata in order to interface with each one of the servers and with the bus bar to direct electrical power from the bus bar into each server (Tufty and col 1, lines 25-30).
Regarding Claim 20, Tata/Tufty discloses the IHS of claim 18, but fails to disclose wherein the modules are compatible with either an Electronics Industries Alliance (EIA) 19 inch rack or an Open Compute Project (OCP) 21 inch rack. Tufty teaches (figs. 1-15) wherein the modules are compatible with either the EIA 19 inch rack or the OCP 21 inch rack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an open Compute Project rack specifications of Tufty to device of Tata in order to provide a plurality of server module assemblies mounted on the rack at different vertical levels (Tufty and col 1, lines 40-42).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-18 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROCKSHANA D CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-1602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allen L Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROCKSHANA D CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights