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 13, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1 and 4-17 remain pending, but stand rejected for the reasons detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 4-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues the prior art of record does not teach a computing chassis and a first server being deployed at an edge of a computing environment (Arguments, pages 6-7). However, Examiner submits chassis 601 in Long and host server 6 in Usada are deployed/arranged at the edge of a computing environment (edge of space shown in Figure 6 of Long and edge of space shown in Figure 1 of Usada) to the same degree shown in the present application.
Applicant argues Usada does not teach “a second server in communication with the computing chassis over a network, including in communication with the first IOM and the second IOM” (Arguments, pages 6-7). Examiner agrees Usada only teaches a first server (see Figure 1 below), but submits the newly cited reference, Chidambaram (US Patent No. 7843906), teaches wherein a plurality of servers may be connected to the network modules and IOMs (see Figure 1A below). Examiner also submits Long suggests such a configuration (see
PNG
media_image1.png
576
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Paragraph [0091]). For these reasons, and the reasons detailed below, Examiner submits
PNG
media_image2.png
558
824
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chidambaram cures any deficiencies of Long and Usada.
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, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US Publication No. 2020/0264998) in view of Chen (US Publication No. 2016/0309605), Usuda (US Publication No. 2017/0078151), and Chidambaram (US Patent No. 7843906).
Regarding claim 1, Long discloses a computing environment, including: a computing chassis (Figure 6, enclosure 601), deployed at an edge of the computing environment (see Figure 6), including a plurality of bays (space within 601 accommodating modules 520-550, 610), the computing chassis (601) including a first side (first side of midplane 640) and a second side (second side of 640) positioned opposite to the first side (first side of 640); the computing chassis (601) including: a first input/output module (IOM) (first fabric module 520; see Paragraph [0090]) positioned at the second side of the chassis (second side of 640); a second input/output module (IOM) (second fabric module 520; see Paragraph [0090]) positioned at the second side of the chassis (second side of 640); a plurality of storage devices (storage modules 610), each storage device i) positioned within a respective bay of the plurality of bays (space within 601 accommodating modules 520-550, 610) at a first side (first side of 640) of the chassis (601) and ii) coupled (via 640) to both the first IOM (first 520) and the second IOM (second 520); and a plurality of network devices (network modules 550), each network device (550) positioned within a respective bay of the plurality of bays (space within 601 accommodating modules 520-550, 610) at a first second side (second side of 640) of the chassis (601), each network device (550) including network connectors (external links 695) positioned at a first side of the network device (outer side of 550) and network ports (connectors 685) positioned at a second side of the network device (inner side of 550) opposite to the first side (outer side of 550), each network device (550) coupled to both the first IOM (first 520) and the second IOM (second 520) by respective network ports (685) of the network device (550), wherein the network connectors (695) are positioned at the second side of the chassis (second side of 640), wherein the network devices (550) provide connectivity of the first IOM (first fabric module 520) and the second IOM (second fabric module 520) to the second side of the chassis (second side of 640), and suggests
a first server (Paragraph [0091], server connected to first 550 via link 695), deployed at the edge of the computing environment (links 695 being located at edge of system in Figure 6), coupled to the first IOM (first 520) and the second IOM (second 520) through the connectivity provided by a particular network device of the plurality of network devices (Paragraph [0091], server connected to first network module 550 via external inks 695; Figure 5, network modules 550 connected to fabric modules 520), the first server (see Paragraph [0091]) coupled to the particular network device (first 550) via the network connectors (695) of the particular network device (695) at the second side of 640); and a second server (see Paragraphs [0091], second server of the plurality of servers) in communication with the computing chassis (601) over a network (Paragraph [0091], packet network), including in communication with the first IOM (first 520) and the second IOM (second 520).
Long does not disclose each network device positioned within a respective bay of the plurality of bays at a first side of the chassis, and wherein the network connectors are positioned at the first side of the chassis.
However, Chen teaches a plurality of network devices including a network connectors(Figures 2-5 and Paragraphs [0024]-[0029], electronic devices 20 being network modules with network connectors 211), each network device (20 with 211) positioned within a respective bay (slot space 121) of the plurality of bays (slot spaces 16) at a first side of the chassis (first side of main body 10), and wherein the network connectors (Figures 2-5 and Paragraphs [0024]-[0029], electronic devices 20 being network modules with network connectors 211) are positioned at a first side of the chassis (first side of main body 10; see Paragraph [0024] and Figures 2-5, where network and storage modules are both arranged on the first side of body 10).
Because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized arranging the network devices on the first side of the enclosure would perform the same operation as arranging the network devices on the second side of the enclosure, 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 rearrange the network devices of Long to the first side of the chassis, as taught in Chen, such that the network devices provide connectivity of the first IOM and the second IOM to the first side of the chassis, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Long in view of Chen suggests, but does not explicitly teach, wherein each network device is connected to each storage device through the first IOM and second IOM, and a first server, deployed at the edge of the computing environment, coupled to the first IOM and the second IOM through the connectivity provided by a particular network device of the plurality of network devices, the first server coupled to the particular network device via the network connectors of the particular network device at the first side of the chassis.
However, Usuda teaches a first IOM (IOM #1), a second IOM (IOM #2), a plurality of storage devices (storage device #0, #1, #2), and a plurality of network devices (CM #0, #1; see Paragraphs [0048], [0056]-[0058]), wherein each network device (CM #0, #1) is connected to each storage device (each storage device #0, #1, #2) through the first IOM (IOM #1) and second IOM (IOM #2), and a first server (host apparatus 6), deployed at the edge of the computing environment (edge of Figure 1), coupled to the first IOM (IOM #1) and the second IOM (IOM #2) through the connectivity provided by a particular network device of the plurality of network devices (CM #0, #1), the first server (6) coupled to the particular network device (CM #0, #1) via the network connectors (communication interfaces IF 4) of the particular network device (CM #0, #1) at the first side of the chassis (first side of device in Figure 1).
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 connection between the server, network devices, storage devices, and IOMs in Long as modified by Chen to be connected such that each network device is connected to each storage device via the first IOM and second IOM, and such that the server is connected to the IOM via the network devices, as taught in Usuda, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of connecting network devices, storage devices, and IOM modules to each other. Doing so would have also increased load balancing and reliability by creating a redundant connection between the storage modules and network modules (see Paragraphs [0039]-[0049] and Figure 1 in Usuda).
Long in view of Chen and Usada suggests, but does not explicitly teach, a second server in communication with the computing chassis over a network, including in communication with the first IOM and the second IOM.
However, Chidambaram teaches a second server (client server 102) in communication with the computing chassis (chassis of server ES) over a network (packet network 107), including in communication with the first IOM (first switch fabric module 180, via network modules 130) and the second IOM (second switch fabric module 180, via 130; see Figures 1A-1B).
Because Long suggests a plurality of servers being connected to the network modules and also suggests a packet network (see Paragraph [0091]), 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 a plurality of servers and network of Chidambaram to the network modules of Long in view of Chen and Usuda. Doing so would have allowed a plurality of servers to be in communication with the computing environment at the same time (see cols. 13, 16 and 20 in Chidambaram).
Regarding claim 7, Long in view of Chen, Usuda, and Chidambaram teaches the computing environment of claim 1, and further teaches (in Long) wherein the network connectors (695) of each network device (550) that are positioned at the first side of the chassis (first side of 601, as modified by Chen) include two network connectors (plurality of 695).
Regarding claim 11, Long in view of Chen, Usuda, and Chidambaram teaches the computing environment of claim 1, and further teaches (in Long) wherein the network connectors include RJ-45 and/or SFP connectors (see Paragraph [0091]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US Publication No. 2020/0264998), Chen (US Publication No. 2016/0309605), Usuda (US Publication No. 2017/0078151), Chidambaram (US Patent No. 7843906), and in further view of Islam (US Publication No. 2019/0213146).
Regarding claim 4, Long in view of Chen, Usuda, and Chidambaram teaches the computing environment of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first server accesses one or more of the plurality of storage devices via the particular network device.
However, Islam teaches wherein a first server (network 170, corresponding to server in Paragraph [0091] in Long) accesses one or more of a plurality of storage devices (storage devices 165) via the particular network device (network device 110; see Paragraph [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 modified the connection between the server and network device of Long as modified by Chen, Usuda, and Chidambaram to allow access to the storage modules of Long as modified by Chen, Usuda, and Chidambaram, as taught in Islam. Doing so would have allowed external devices to access the storage modules of the computing environment (see Paragraph [0023] in Islam).
Claims 5-6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US Publication No. 2020/0264998), Chen (US Publication No. 2016/0309605), Usuda (US Publication No. 2017/0078151), Chidambaram (US Patent No. 7843906), and in further view of Huang (US Publication No. 2015/0006663).
Regarding claim 5, Long in view of Chen, Usuda, and Chidambaram teaches the computing environment of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of storage devices include an Ethernet Bunch of Flash (EBoF) storage device.
However, Huang teaches wherein a plurality of storage devices (Figure 1, NVMe storage nodes 111a, 111b) include an Ethernet Bunch of Flash (EBoF) storage device (see Paragraph [0037]-[0040]; Paragraph [0005] of instant application, “EBOF storage device includes a non-volatile memory express (NVMe) solid state drive (SSD) and a NVMe to Ethernet converter 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 substituted the storage devices of Long as modified by Chen, Usuda, and Chidambaram for the EBoF storage devices of Huang according to known methods to yield the predictable results of providing a computing device with storage modules. Doing so would have also enabled the access of remote non-volatile memory over an external network (such as Ethernet) using NVMe commands, reducing latency and increasing performance when accessing the storage devices (see Paragraphs [0005]-[0009] in Huang).
Regarding claim 6, Long in view of Chen, Usuda, Chidambaram, and Huang teaches the computing environment of claim 5, and further teaches (in Huang) wherein the EBoF storage device includes a non-volatile memory express (NVMe) solid state drive (SSD) (see Paragraph [0038]) and a NVMe to Ethernet converter device (NVMe controller 112; Paragraph [0041], “the extended NVMe controller 112 may convert an NVMe command to a suitable format for transmission over Ethernet”).
Regarding claim 17, Long in view of Chen, Usuda, and Chidambaram teaches the computing environment of claim 1, and further teaches (in Long) wherein the plurality of storage devices (510) are coupled to the first IOM (first 520) and the second IOM (second 520), but does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of storage devices are coupled to the first IOM and the second IOM utilizing Ethernet.
However, Huang discloses wherein a plurality of storage devices (NVMe storage nodes 111a, 111b) are coupled to an IOM (switch 114, corresponding to 520 in Long) utilizing Ethernet (see Paragraph [0038]).
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 storage devices of Long as modified by Chen, Usuda, and Chidambaram for the EBoF storage devices of Huang, such that the storage modules were connected to the IOMs via Ethernet, as taught in Huang. Doing so would have enabled the access of remote, non-volatile memory over an external network (such as Ethernet) using NVMe commands, reducing latency and increasing performance when accessing the storage devices (see Paragraphs [0005]-[0009] in Huang).
Claims 8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US Publication No. 2020/0264998), Chen (US Publication No. 2016/0309605), Usuda (US Publication No. 2017/0078151), Chidambaram (US Patent No. 7843906), and in further view of Anzo (US Publication No. 2017/0374160).
Regarding claim 8, Long in view of Chen, Usuda, and Chidambaram teaches the computing environment of claim 7, but does not explicitly teach wherein a first connector of the two network connectors is connected to the first IOM and a second connector of the two network connectors is connected to the second IOM.
However, Anzo teaches a first and second IOM (IOM 104A, 104B) and a plurality of network devices (NIC 102A, 102C), each network device (102A, 102C) including network connectors (ports 106A-106D, 106I-106L) positioned at a first side of the network device (102A, 102C) wherein a first connector (106A, 106I) of the two network connectors (ports 106A-106D, 106I-106L) is connected to the first IOM (104A) and a second connector (106B, 106K) of the two network connectors is connected to the second IOM (104A, 104B).
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 network connectors of Anzo to the network devices of Long as modified by Chen, Usuda, and Chidambaram, such that the network connectors were connected to the first and second IOMs of Long as modified by Chen, Usuda, and Chidambaram, as taught in Anzo. Doing so would have established NIC teaming, allowing multiple network ports to be teamed together for bandwidth aggregation, and/or for network traffic failover to maintain connectivity to a network in the case of network component failure (see Paragraph [0011] in Anzo).
Regarding claim 12, Long in view of Chen, Usuda, and Chidambaram teaches the computing environment of claim 1, and further teaches (in Long) wherein the network connectors (695) of each network device (550) are positioned at the first side of the chassis (first side of 601, as modified by Chen), but does not explicitly teach wherein the network connectors of each network device including four network connectors.
However, Anzo teaches network devices (NICs 102) comprising network connectors (ports 106), the network connectors (106) of each network device (102) include four network connectors (see Figure 1).
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 network connectors of Anzo to the network devices of Long as modified by Chen, Usuda, and Chidambaram, such that the network connectors were redundantly connected to the first and second IOMs of Long as modified by Chen, Usuda, and Chidambaram, as taught in Anzo. Doing so would have established NIC teaming, allowing multiple network ports to be teamed together for bandwidth aggregation, and/or for network traffic failover to maintain connectivity to a network in the case of network component failure (see Paragraph [0011] in Anzo).
Regarding claim 13, Long in view of Chen, Usuda, Chidambaram, and Anzo teaches the computing environment of claim 12, and further teaches (in Anzo) wherein a first connector (106A; 106I) and a second connector (106C; 106J) of the four network connectors (106A-106D; 106I-106L) is connected to the first IOM (104A); and a third (106B, 106K) and a fourth connector (106D, 106J) of the four network connectors (106A-106D; 106I-106L) is connected to the second IOM (104B).
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US Publication No. 2020/0264998), Chen (US Publication No. 2016/0309605), Usuda (US Publication No. 2017/0078151), Chidambaram (US Patent No. 7843906), Anzo (US Publication No. 2017/0374160), and in further view of Hidaka (US Publication No. 2005/0257232).
Regarding claim 9, Long in view of Chen, Usuda, Chidambaram, and Anzo teaches the computing environment of claim 8, but does not explicitly teach wherein the computing chassis includes 24 bays.
However, Hidaka teaches a computing chassis (rack 16) including 24 bays (see Figures 1-2, where rack 16 includes 432 bays accommodating units 18).
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 enclosure of Long as modified by Chen, Usuda, Chidambaram, and Anzo to include the number of bays taught in Hidaka. Doing so would have increased the storage capacity of the computing environment (see Figures 1-2 and Paragraphs [0010]-[0014] in Hidaka).
Regarding claim 14, Long in view of Chen, Usuda, Chidambaram, and Anzo teaches the computing environment of claim 13, but does not explicitly teach wherein the computing chassis includes 40 bays.
However, Hidaka teaches a computing chassis (rack 16) including 40 bays (see Figures 1-2, where rack 16 includes 432 bays accommodating units 18).
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 enclosure of Long as modified by Chen, Usuda, Chidambaram, and Anzo to include the number of bays taught in Hidaka. Doing so would have increased the storage capacity of the computing environment (see Figures 1-2 and Paragraphs [0010]-[0014] in Hidaka).
Claims 10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US Publication No. 2020/0264998), Chen (US Publication No. 2016/0309605), Usuda (US Publication No. 2017/0078151), Chidambaram (US Patent No. 7843906), Anzo (US Publication No. 2017/0374160), Hidaka (US Publication No. 2005/0257232), and in further view of Chen (US Patent No. 10936527, hereinafter “Chen ‘527”) and Grady (US Publication No. 2024/0288915).
Regarding claim 10, Long in view of Chen, Usuda, Chidambaram, Anzo, and Hidaka teaches the computing environment of claim 9, but does not explicitly teach wherein a first thickness of each of the network devices is substantially the same as a second thickness of each of the storage devices.
However, Chen ‘527 and Grady teach wherein a first thickness of a network device (Figure 2A in Chen ‘527, NIC expansion card having a thickness of 15 mm) is substantially the same as a second thickness of a storage device (Table 1 in Grady, EDSFF E1.S having a thickness of 15 mm).
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 storage and network devices of Long as modified by Chen, Usuda, Chidambaram, Anzo, and Hidaka for the storage and network devices taught in Chen ‘527 and Grady, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of arranging storage and network devices within an enclosure.
Additionally, because the computing device of the claimed invention has similar structure and proportion to the computing device of Long as modified by Chen, Usuda, Chidambaram, Anzo, and Hidaka, 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 thickness of the storage and network devices as taught in Chen ‘527 and Grady, considering doing so would have allowed a user to easily arrange the network and storage devices within the shared enclosure.
Regarding claim 15, Long in view of Chen, Usuda, Chidambaram, Anzo, and Hidaka teaches the computing environment of claim 14, but does not explicitly teach wherein a first thickness of each of the network devices is greater than a second thickness of each of the storage devices.
However, Chen ‘527 and Grady teach wherein a first thickness of a network device (Figure 2A in Chen ‘527, NIC expansion card having a thickness of 15 mm) is greater than a second thickness of a storage device (Table 1 in Grady, EDSFF E3.S 1T having a thickness of 7.5 mm).
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 storage and network devices of Long as modified by Chen, Usuda, Chidambaram, Anzo, and Hidaka for the storage and network devices taught in Chen ‘527 and Grady, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of arranging storage and network devices within an enclosure.
Additionally, because the computing device of the claimed invention has similar structure and proportion to the computing device of Long as modified by Chen, Usuda, Chidambaram, Anzo, and Hidaka, 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 thickness of the storage and network devices as taught in Chen ‘527 and Grady, considering doing so would have allowed a user to easily arrange the network and storage devices within the shared enclosure.
Regarding claim 16, Long in view of Chen, Usuda, Chidambaram, Anzo, Hidaka, Chen ‘527, and Grady teaches the computing environment of claim 15, and further teaches (in Chen ‘527 and Grady) wherein the first thickness (15 mm in Chen ‘527) is double the second thickness (7.5 mm in Grady).
Conclusion
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 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