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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the third member comprises a plurality of planar assembly alignment features” (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope of “wherein the third member comprises a plurality of planar assembly alignment features… and wherein the first member extends over the second member and the third member” (claim 1) without any reference in the specification as to what the alignment features are with reference numbers. The members 202a appear to be attached to alignment features but do not have the alignment features, unless base 203 is considered to actually be a part of the third member rather than a separate part.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by PARIGOT US 2024/0206073 Al.
Re claim 1, PARIGOT teach a handle comprising: a first member (annotated fig ); a second member (annotated fig ), wherein the second member extends substantially perpendicular from a first surface of the first member and is mechanically interfaced between the first member and a third member (annotated fig ); and the third member, wherein the third member comprises a plurality of planar assembly alignment features (annotated fig) configured to align the handle relative to a planar assembly (3, 13) to enable a heat sink (7) coupled to the planar assembly to extend over the third member, and wherein the first member extends over the second member and the third member (noting the first member extends over the sides and along the height directions, given what would of ordinary skill in the art would interpret extend over broadly to be and looking to the instant applications drawing fig 2 where the three members extend over by being mostly adjacent to each other ).
Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘over’ is above or beyond some quantity or across or across a barrier or intervening (see intervene sense 4) space.
Noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘member’ is a part of a structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
753
969
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 3, PARIGOT teach wherein the plurality of planar assembly alignment features comprises a first recess comprising a first hole and a second recess comprising a second hole (holes for 27a, b).
Re claim 4, PARIGOT teach wherein the first recess is configured to enable the heat sink to extend over the first recess (figs).
Re claim 5, PARIGOT teach wherein the first hole and the second hole are each configured to receive a fastener (27a, b) configured to mechanically couple the handle to the planar assembly.
Re claim 6, PARIGOT teach wherein the first hole is configured to align with a first attach point hole of the planar assembly and the second hole is configured to align with a second attach point hole of the planar assembly wherein the first attach point hole (hole for 27a through 3, para 66) is located at an edge of the planar assembly and the second attach point hole (hole for 27b through 3, para 66) is located closer to the center of the planar assembly than the first attach point hole (figs).
Re claim 7, PARIGOT teach wherein the second attach point hole is configured to enable coupling of an information handling resource (5a, 5b , 11a, 11b) to the planar assembly (figs, para 66).
Re claim 8, PARIGOT teach a system comprising: a planar assembly (3, 13) configured to couple to a heat sink (7); and a handle mechanically coupled to the planar assembly, the handle comprising: a first member; a second member, wherein the second member extends substantially perpendicular from a first surface of the first member and is mechanically interfaced between the first member and a third member; and the third member, wherein the third member comprises a plurality of planar assembly alignment features aligning (noting the features are aligned attached) the handle relative to a planar assembly to enable the heat sink coupled to the planar assembly to extend over the third member, and wherein the first member extends over the second member and the third member (see the rejection of claim 1).
Re claim 10, see the rejection of claim 3.
Re claim 11, see the rejection of claim 4.
Re claim 12, see the rejection of claim 5.
Re claim 13, see the rejection of claim 6.
Re claim 14, see the rejection of claim 7.
Re claim 15, PARIGOT teach a method comprising: aligning a handle with a planar assembly (3, 13) , wherein the planar assembly is configured to couple to a heat sink (7); and coupling the handle to the planar assembly, wherein the handle comprises: a first member (annotated fig ); a second member (annotated fig ), wherein the second member extends substantially perpendicular from a first surface of the first member and is mechanically interfaced between the first member and a third member (annotated fig ); and the third member, wherein the third member comprises a plurality of planar assembly alignment features (annotated fig ) configured to align the handle relative to a planar assembly to enable the heat sink coupled to the planar assembly to extend over the third member, and wherein the first member extends over the second member and the third member (see the rejection of claim 1, figs).
PNG
media_image1.png
753
969
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 17, see the rejection of claim 3.
Re claim 18, see the rejection of claim 4.
Re claim 19, see the rejection of claim 5.
Re claim 20, see the rejection of claim 6.
Re claim 21, PARIGOT teach wherein the first attach point hole is configured to enable coupling of an information handling resource (5a, 5b , 11a, 11b) to the planar assembly (figs, para 66).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARIGOT in view of Krivonak US 20200337177 A1 and CHEN US 20150014500 A1.
Re claim 2, PARIGOT fail to teach a chassis.
Krivonak teach the planar assembly (202, 204, 206) to a chassis (504) to structurally support modules .
When combined, PARIGOT, as modified, teach the handle is configured to facilitate coupling and uncoupling of the planar assembly to a chassis (noting the handle facilitates having a planar assembly being able to be mounted to another structure which naturally teach “the handle is configured to facilitate coupling and uncoupling of the planar assembly to a chassis” in the instant combination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a chassis as taught by Krivonak in the PARIGOT invention in order to advantageously allow for specific circuitry to be used in an electrical power delivery system.
Although it is well known in the art dis
configured to facilitate coupling and uncoupling of the planar assembly to a chassis
Additionally, CHEN teach configured to facilitate coupling and uncoupling of the planar assembly to a chassis to take apart a fixing screw (para 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include uncoupling as taught by CHEN in the PARIGOT , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for dissembly and replacement of parts.
Re claim 9, see the rejection of claim 2.
Re claim 16, see the rejection of claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see reply, filed 6/10/2026, with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that PARIGOT fail to teach the newly amended scope of claims 1 and 8. The examiner respectfully disagrees. A new rejection of record, in view of the change in scope of the amended claims, is provided where PARIGOT teach the newly claimed scope (see detailed rejections above).
This application is being made non-final to afford the applicant the opportunity to respond to the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues the claims dependent on the independent claim(s) are allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 8 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
Conclusion
This application is being made non-final to afford the applicant the opportunity to respond to the new grounds of rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights