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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 10 and 18 recites “comforming” in line should be “conforming”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4-5, 10-11, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tata et al (US Patent No. 6487071 B1 and Tata hereinafter) in view of BAILEY et al. (US Pub No. 2015/0189787 A1 and BAILEY 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. Tata does not explicitly disclose a computing rack conforming to a first computing rack specification; wherein each of the modules are configured for placement in another computing rack conforming to a second computing rack specification, wherein the first computing rack specification is different from the second computing rack specification. However, BAILEY teaches (figs. 1-19) a computing rack conforming to a first computing rack specification (EIA-310); wherein each of the modules are configured for placement in another computing rack conforming to a second computing rack specification (OCP), wherein the first computing rack specification is different from the second computing rack specification ([0097-0098]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the first computing rack specification is different from the second computing rack specification of BAILEY to device of Tata in order to provide an adapter that is designed to provide front to back adjustability that allows for locating IT gear to the appropriate depth relative to the non-standard equipment (BAILEY and [0097]).
Regarding Claim 2, Tata/ BAILEY discloses the computing rack architecture system of claim 1. Tata discloses (figs. 2-5 and annotated fig below) wherein the first plate comprises a bottom support plate structured to support the weight of the modules (fig.2).
Regarding Claim 4, Tata/ BAILEY discloses the computing rack architecture system of claim 1. BAILEY further teaches (figs. 1-19 and ([0097-0098]) wherein the first and second computing rack specification comprises at least one of an Electronics Industries Alliance (EIA) 19 inch rack specification or an Open Compute Project (OCP) 21 inch rack specification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the first computing rack specification is different from the second computing rack specification of BAILEY to device of Tata in order to provide an adapter that is designed to provide front to back adjustability that allows for locating IT gear to the appropriate depth relative to the non-standard equipment (BAILEY and [0097]).
Regarding Claim 5, Tata/ BAILEY discloses the computing rack architecture system of claim 4. BAILEY further teaches (figs. 1-19 and ([0097-0098]) wherein the modules are compatible with either the EIA 19 inch rack specification or the OCP 21 inch rack specification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the first computing rack specification is different from the second computing rack specification of BAILEY to device of Tata in order to provide an adapter that is designed to provide front to back adjustability that allows for locating IT gear to the appropriate depth relative to the non-standard equipment (BAILEY and [0097]).
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
Tata does not explicitly disclose a computing rack conforming to a first computing rack specification; wherein each of the modules are configured for placement in another computing rack conforming to a second computing rack specification, wherein the first computing rack specification is different from the second computing rack specification. However, BAILEY teaches (figs. 1-19) a computing rack conforming to a first computing rack specification (EIA-310); wherein each of the modules are configured for placement in another computing rack conforming to a second computing rack specification (OCP), wherein the first computing rack specification is different from the second computing rack specification ([0097-0098]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the first computing rack specification is different from the second computing rack specification of BAILEY to device of Tata in order to provide an adapter that is designed to provide front to back adjustability that allows for locating IT gear to the appropriate depth relative to the non-standard equipment (BAILEY and [0097]).
Regarding Claim 11, Tata/ BAILEY discloses the the computing rack architecture method of claim 10. Tata further teaches 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. Tata does not explicitly disclose a computing rack conforming to a first computing rack specification; wherein each of the modules are configured for placement in another computing rack conforming to a second computing rack specification, wherein the first computing rack specification is different from the second computing rack specification. However, BAILEY teaches (figs. 1-19) a computing rack conforming to a first computing rack specification (EIA-310); wherein each of the modules are configured for placement in another computing rack conforming to a second computing rack specification (OCP), wherein the first computing rack specification is different from the second computing rack specification ([0097-0098]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the first computing rack specification is different from the second computing rack specification of BAILEY to device of Tata in order to provide an adapter that is designed to provide front to back adjustability that allows for locating IT gear to the appropriate depth relative to the non-standard equipment (BAILEY and [0097]).
Regarding Claim 20, Tata/ BAILEY discloses the IHS of claim 18. BAILEY further teaches (figs. 1-19 and ([0097-0098]) wherein the modules are compatible with either an Electronics Industries Alliance (EIA) 19 inch rack specification or an Open Compute Project (OCP) 21 inch rack specification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the first computing rack specification is different from the second computing rack specification of BAILEY to device of Tata in order to provide qn adapter is designed to provide front to back adjustability that allows for locating IT gear to the appropriate depth relative to the non-standard equipment (BAILEY and [0097]).
Claims 6-9 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tata et al in view of BAILEY et al and further in view of Tufty et al. (US Patent No. 11452241 B2 and Tufty hereinafter)
Regarding Claim 6, Tata/ BAILEY 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/ BAILEY 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/ BAILEY /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/ BAILEY 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/ BAILEY 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/ BAILEY 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/ BAILEY /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/ BAILEY 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/ BAILEY discloses 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/ BAILEY 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/ BAILEY discloses 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
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 Tata/ BAILEY 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 15, Tata/ BAILEY/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/ BAILEY 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/ BAILEY 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/ BAILEY 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/ BAILEY /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/ BAILEY 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).
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure that provides a single equipment rack that can bridge the gap between the standard EIA 19″ rack design and the developing OCP Open Rack design, with an ability to convert from one standard to the other.
KLABA (US 20220386500 A1)
Chen ( US 20210161294 A1)
Chen (US 20180084907 A1)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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