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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 27, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot, in part, 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 Zhai discloses a drive carrier, not a drive cage, and submits a drive cage and drive carrier are well known terms of art for distinct classes of devices (Arguments, pages 14-15). Examiner disagrees.
Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
The instant application states, “a drive cage holding multiple media drives is removable from, and installable in, an information processing device.” Examiner submits the storage carrier 151 in Zhang (US Publication No. 2022/0272860) and the carrier housing 102 in Zhai (US Patent No. 10064305) are fairly interpreted as “drive cages” under a BRI, considering both carriers 151 and 102 are frames configured to hold a plurality of storage devices and are insertable/removable from information processing devices, as described in the instant application. The claims have since been amended to clarify the drive cage extends from top to bottom and from side to side of the information processing device, which is why Examiner now cites to Chen (US Publication No. 2011/0103001) as the primary reference. However, Examiner still cites to Zhang and Zhai as secondary references for the reasons stated herein.
For these reasons, and the reasons stated below, claims 1-20 stand rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 17, line 27, “coupled the chassis” should read --coupled to the chassis--.
In claim 20, line 28, “drive cage” should read --drive cage unit--.
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.
Claim 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Publication No. 2011/0103001) in view of Yu (US Publication No. 2016/0041590), Zhang (US Publication No. 2022/0272860), and Zhai (US Patent No. 10064305).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses an information processing system comprising: an information processing device (comprised of chassis 10 and cage 20) comprising: a chassis (10) comprising: a front panel (front portion of 10; NOTE: see Paragraphs [0048]-[0049] of instant application, where the front panel is defined as a space defined by top wall 112, bottom wall 113, left wall 114, and right wall 114), a bottom wall (bottom wall of 10), a top wall (top wall of 10), and two side walls (sidewalls 13 of 10), which together define an outer periphery of the chassis (10); and a drive cage receptacle (opening 11, including space within 10 accommodating 20) extending across the front panel (front portion of 10) and comprising an opening (11) at the front panel (front portion of 10), a top at the top wall (top of 11 adjacent top wall of 10), a bottom at the bottom wall (bottom of 11 adjacent bottom wall of 10), a first side at one of the side walls (side of 11 adjacent first 13), a second side at the other of the side walls (side of 11 adjacent second 13), the opening (11) extending between the first and second sides (sides of 11) and between the top and bottom (top and bottom of 11); and a drive cage unit (see Figures 1, 3, 5) comprising a drive cage (cage 20), one or more injector/ejector mechanisms (latch members 30), and a plurality of media drives (HDDs 80) mounted in a plurality of bays (openings 22) of the drive cage (20), respectively, wherein the drive cage unit (see Figures 1, 3, 5), in a state of the media drives already mounted in the bays (22), is installable and removable (see Figures 1, 3, 5) from the drive cage receptacle (11) by insertion or withdrawal through the opening (11), wherein in an installed state of the drive cage unit (see Figures 1, 3, 5) in the drive cage receptacle (11), the drive cage (20) extends across the drive cage receptacle (11) from the first side (side of 11 adjacent first sidewall 13) to the second side (side of 11 adjacent second
PNG
media_image1.png
566
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
sidewall 13) and from the top to the bottom (top and bottom of 11).
Chen does not explicitly disclose information processing circuitry housed in the chassis; and electrical connectors connected to the information processing circuitry, wherein the media drives are electrically connected to the information processing circuitry.
However, Yu teaches an information processing system comprising: an information processing device (server 1000) comprising: a chassis (case 1) defining comprising: a front panel (comprised of area accommodating 2 and ears adjacent 2), a bottom wall (bottom case 11), two side walls (lateral cases 12-13), and a rear wall (partitions 14-17) which together define an outer periphery of the chassis (1), and information processing circuitry (comprised of board 3 and circuitry within modules 4-7) housed in the chassis (1), and electrical connectors (connectors of back board 22) connected to the information processing circuitry (circuitry components of 3-7, via connector 221) wherein the media drives (storage devices within module 2) are electrically connected (see Figures 3-5) to the information processing circuitry (circuitry components of 3-7).
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 front panel ears, internal processing circuitry, and backplane of Yu to the chassis of Chen. Doing so would have allowed a user to determine if the server was properly aligned within a rack, and would have allowed the media devices to be powered and connected to a modular, redundant processing system (see Figures 4-11 and Paragraphs [0010]-[0020] in Yu).
Chen in view of Yu does not explicitly teach wherein the drive cage unit, in a state of the media drives already mounted in the bays, is installable in and removable from the drive cage receptacle by insertion or withdrawal through the opening such that all of the media drives physically connect with the electrical connectors, respectively, during installation of the drive cage unit and disconnect from the electrical connectors during removal of the drive cage unit.
However, Zhang teaches a drive cage unit (Figure 2, storage assembly 15) comprising a drive cage (carrier 151), one or more injector/ejector mechanisms (fastener 155), and a plurality of bays (spaces accommodating 153) with a plurality of media drives (SSDs 153) mounted in a plurality of bays (openings 22) of the drive cage (20), respectively, wherein the drive cage unit (15), in a state of the media drives (153) already mounted in the bays (space accommodating 153), is removably installable in and removable from a drive cage receptacle (accommodating space 111) by insertion or withdrawal through the opening (opening 110) such that the drive cage (151) and the media drives (153) mounted in the bays (spaces accommodating 153) are insertable in and removable from the drive cage receptacle (111) together as a unit (see Figures 2 and 6-7) such that all of the media drives (153) physically connect with the electrical connectors (131), respectively, during installation of the drive cage unit (15) and disconnect from the electrical connectors (131) during removal of the drive cage unit (15).
Because Chen suggests that the drive cage (20) and the media drives (80) mounted in the bays (22) are insertable in and removable from the drive cage receptacle (11) together as a unit (see Figures 3-5), 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 media devices of the drive unit in Chen as modified by Yu to connect/disconnect with the electrical connectors of Chen as modified by Yu during the insertion and removal process of the drive cage unit, as taught in Zhang, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of interconnecting a plurality of media devices within a server device. Doing so would have also decreased the assembly time (see Figure 2 in Zhang).
Chen in view of Yu and Zhang does not teach wherein the drive cage unit is a hot-swappable drive cage unit.
However, Zhai teaches wherein a drive cage unit (electronic module carrier 100) is a hot swapable drive cage unit (see col. 4, ln. 3-19; col. 8, ln. 21-25).
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 media devices in Chen as modified by Yu and Zhang to be hot pluggable, resulting in the drive cage being hot pluggable, as taught in Zhai. Doing so would have allowed the media devices and drive cage to be safely inserted in or removed from the chassis without turning off the chassis power (see col. 4, ln. 3-19 in Zhai).
Regarding claim 15, Chen in view of Yu, Zhang, and Zhai teaches the information processing system of claim 1, and further teaches (in Yu) wherein the information processing device (server 1000) comprises a backplane (22 in Yu; see also 13 in Zhang) positioned at a rear of the drive cage receptacle (housing of rear of module 2 in Yu) and comprising the electrical connector (connectors of back board 22).
Claims 2-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Publication No. 2011/0103001), Yu (US Publication No. 2016/0041590), Zhang (US Publication No. 2022/0272860), Zhai (US Patent No. 10064305), and in further view of Becker (US Patent No. 5721669).
Regarding claim 2, Chen in view of Yu, Zhang, and Zhai teaches the information processing system of claim 1, and further teaches (in Chen) wherein the drive cage (100) comprises one or more injector/ejector mechanisms (30), but does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more injector/ejector mechanisms are configured to, in a state of the drive cage in the drive cage receptacle, engage with a corresponding engagement element coupled to the chassis and convert actuation forces supplied to the injector/ejector mechanisms into insertion forces during the installation of the drive cage unit or ejection forces during removal of the drive cage unit, wherein the injection forces force the drive cage to translate relative to the chassis into an installed position corresponding to the installed state of the drive cage unit, and wherein the ejection forces that force the drive cage to translate out from the installed position.
However, Becker discloses wherein one or more injector/ejector mechanisms (gear train 242) are configured to, in a state of a drive cage (drive carrier 100) in a drive cage receptacle (drive bay 126), engage with a corresponding engagement element (rack profile 146) coupled to a chassis (chassis 104) and convert actuation forces supplied to the injector/ejector mechanisms (242) into insertion forces during the installation of the drive cage unit (100) or ejection forces during removal of the drive cage unit (100), wherein the injection forces force the drive cage (100) to translate relative to the chassis (104) into an installed position corresponding to the installed state of the drive cage unit (100), and wherein ejection forces force the drive cage (100) to translate out from the installed position (see Figures 5-10).
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 injector/ejector mechanism of Chen as modified by Yu, Zhang, and Zhai for the injector/ejector mechanism of Becker according to know methods to yield the predictable results of latching a drive cage to a chassis. Doing so would have also provided a sealed low-effort insertion/extraction mechanism that requires a constant force input and has a sufficient mechanical advantage to overcome electrical-connector mating forces, and be simple and inexpensive to manufacture (see col. 2, ln. 19-29 in Becker).
Regarding claim 3, Chen in view of Yu, Zhang, Zhai, and Becker teaches the information processing system of claim 2, and further teaches (in Becker) wherein each of the one or more injector/ejector mechanisms (Figure 4, 242) comprises a lever (actuation lever 248) and a gear assembly (see Figure 4) comprising one or more pinion gears (input driver gear 246, idle gear 250, output drive gear 252), wherein each of the engagement elements (146) comprise a rack (see Figures 1 and 5-10), wherein actuation of the lever (248) drives rotation of the pinion gears (246, 250, 252), and wherein rotation of the pinion gears (246, 250, 252) drives translation of the drive cage (100) relative to the chassis (104).
Regarding claim 8, Chen in view of Yu, Zhang, Zhai, and Becker teaches the information processing system of claim 3, and further teaches (in Becker) wherein each of the injector/ejector mechanisms (242) is configured to provide generate an injection force and an ejection force with a magnitude that is at least two times greater than a magnitude of an actuation force applied to actuate the respective injector/ejector mechanism (see col. 5, ln. 35-56).
Chen in view of Yu, Zhang, Zhai, and Becker does not explicitly teach an injection force and an ejection force with a magnitude that is at least ten times greater than a magnitude of an actuation force applied to actuate the respective injector/ejector mechanism. However, because Becker explains the relationship between the length of the lever and the diameter of the gears can be adjusted to increase the mechanical advantage (see col. 5, ln. 35-56 in Becker), 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 relationship between the gears and levers of Becker because doing so would have increased the mechanical advantage of the injector/ejector mechanism, reducing the amount of actuation force needed to remove from drive cage from the drive cage receptacle (see col. 5, ln. 35-56 in Becker).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Publication No. 2011/0103001), Yu (US Publication No. 2016/0041590), Zhang (US Publication No. 2022/0272860), Zhai (US Patent No. 10064305), Becker (US Patent No. 5721669), and in further view of Skirmont (US Publication No. 2015/0181743).
Regarding claim 4, Chen in view of Yu, Zhang, Zhai, and Becker teaches the information processing system of claim 3, but does not teach wherein the one or more injector/ejector mechanisms comprise four injector/ejector mechanisms arranged at four corners of the drive cage, and wherein the respective levers of two of the injector/ejector mechanisms are coupled together by a handle and the respective levers of two others of the injector/ejectors mechanism are coupled together by a handle.
However, Skirmont teaches wherein the one or more injector/ejector mechanisms (Figures 2-5, ejectors 736 of 730A, 730B) comprise four injector/ejector mechanisms (ejectors 736) arranged at four corners of the drive cage (corners of blade 118, corresponding to 100 in Zhai), and wherein the respective levers (ejector handles 950 of 730A) of two of the injector/ejector mechanisms (736 of 730A; see Figure 5) are coupled together by a handle (bar 734 of 730A) and the respective levers (ejector handles 950 of 730B) of two others of the injector/ejector mechanisms (736 of 730A; see Figures 2 and 5) are coupled together by a handle (bar 734 of 730B).
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 arranged the injector/ejector mechanisms of Chen as modified by Yu, Zhang, Zhai, and Becker at all four corners of the drive cage, as taught in Skirmont, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of injecting/ejecting a drive cage from a chassis and considering it is well established that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Doing so would have increased the mechanical advantage of the injecting/ejecting mechanism and would have helped ensure both/all sides of the drive cage are equally withdrawn from the chassis at the same time (see Paragraphs [0039], [0094] in Skirmont).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Publication No. 2011/0103001), Yu (US Publication No. 2016/0041590), Zhang (US Publication No. 2022/0272860), Zhai (US Patent No. 10064305), and in further view of Peng (US Publication No. 2005/0128699).
Regarding claim 9, Chen in view of Yu, Zhang, and Zhai teaches information processing system of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the drive cage comprises one or more alignment features to engage with the chassis to guide the drive cage into an installed position.
However, Peng teaches wherein a drive cage (bracket 30) comprises one or more alignment features (fixing walls 38, including first and second sliding members 40, 50) to engage with the chassis (cage 10) to guide the drive cage (30) into an installed position (see Figure 3).
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 alignment features of Peng to the drive cage of Chen as modified by Yu, Zhang, and Zhai. Doing so would have allowed the drive cage to easily slide into and out of the chassis (see Paragraphs [0016]-[0022] in Peng).
Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Yu, Zhang, Zhai, and Peng teaches the information processing system of claim 9, and further teaches (in Peng) wherein the one or more alignment features (38) comprise multiple stages of alignment features (40, 50) configured to engage with the chassis (10) sequentially such that each stage of alignment features (38) progressively moves the drive cage (30) closer to the installed position (see Figures 1-3).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Publication No. 2011/0103001), Yu (US Publication No. 2016/0041590), Zhang (US Publication No. 2022/0272860), Zhai (US Patent No. 10064305), Peng (US Publication No. 2005/0128699), and in further view of Chen (US Publication No 2019/0215979, hereinafter “Chen ‘979”).
Regarding claim 11, Chen in view of Yu, Zhang, Zhai, and Peng teaches information processing system of claim 10, and further teaches (in Peng) wherein the stages of alignment features include a first stage of alignment features (40) comprising sloped surfaces at a rear of the drive cage (rear of 30) configured to guide the drive cage (30) into the drive cage receptacle (18), but does not teach a second stage of alignment features comprising pin receptacles configured to receive pins of the information processing device if the drive cage is inserted a predetermined distance into the drive cage receptacle.
However, Chen ‘979 teaches a second stage of alignment features comprising pin receptacles (guide holes 160, 162) configured to receive pins (112, 114) of the information processing device (100) if the drive cage (shelf 130) is inserted a predetermined distance into the drive cage receptacle (space within 100 accommodating 130).
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 receptacle and pin of Chen ‘979 to the alignment features of Chen in view of Yu, Zhang, Zhai, and Peng. Doing so would have helped ensure the drive cage was properly aligned within the chassis during the insertion process (see Paragraph [0042] in Chen ‘979).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Publication No. 2011/0103001), Yu (US Publication No. 2016/0041590), Zhang (US Publication No. 2022/0272860), Zhai (US Patent No. 10064305), and in further view of Muenzer (US Publication No. 2006/0187631).
Regarding claim 12, Chen in view of Yu, Zhang, and Zhai teaches the information processing system of claim 1, but does not teach wherein a drive cage comprises lockdown features configured to engage with rails attached to the chassis in the receptacle if the drive cage is in the installed position to contain motion of the drive cage, wherein the lockdown features include: one or more top lockdown features on a top side of the of the drive cage, each comprising an engagement surface that faces downward, and one or more bottom lockdown features on a bottom side of the drive cage, each comprising an engagement surface that faces upward, wherein the rails include: one or more top rails at a top of the drive cage receptacle, each comprising an engagement surface that faces upward, and one or more bottom rails at a bottom of the drive cage receptacle, each comprising an engagement surface that faces downward, and wherein, in the installed position of the drive cage, the downward facing engagement surfaces of the top lockdown features engage with the upward facing engagement surfaces of corresponding ones of the top rails to constrain downward motion of the drive cage, and the upward facing engagement surfaces of the bottom lockdown features engage with the downward facing engagement surfaces of corresponding ones of the bottom rails to constrain upward motion of the drive cage.
However, Muenzer teaches wherein the drive cage (modular component 300) comprises lockdown features (Figures 4a-4b, tabs 306a, 308a) configured to engage with rails (Figure 5e, channels 104ac, 104bc) attached to the chassis (chassis 100) in the receptacle (compartments 106b) if the drive cage (300) is in an installed position to constrain motion of the drive cage (300), wherein the lockdown features (306a, 308a) include: one or more top lockdown features (306a) on a top side of the of the drive cage (top side of 300), each comprising an engagement surface that faces downward (see Figure 5e), and one or more bottom lockdown features (308a) on a bottom side of the drive cage (bottom side of 300), each comprising an engagement surface that faces upward (see Figures 4a-4b, 5e), wherein the rails (104ac, 104bc) include: one or more top rails (104bc) at a top of the drive cage receptacle (top of 100), each comprising an engagement surface that faces upward (see Figure 5e), and one or more bottom rails (104ac) at a bottom of the drive cage receptacle (bottom of 100), each comprising an engagement surface that faces downward (see Figure 5e), and wherein, in the installed position of the drive cage (see Figure 5e), the downward facing engagement surfaces of the top lockdown features (bottom surfaces of 306a) engage with the upward facing engagement surfaces of corresponding ones of the top rails (upper surfaces of 104bc) to constrain downward motion of the drive cage (300), and the upward facing engagement surfaces of the bottom lockdown features (upper surfaces of 308a) engage with the downward facing engagement surfaces of corresponding ones of the bottom rails (bottom surfaces of 104ac) to constrain upward motion of the drive cage (300).
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 lockdown features of Muenzer to the chassis and drive cage of Chen as modified by Yu, Zhang, and Zhai. Doing so would have helped ensure the drive cage was properly aligned and secured within the chassis (see Figure 5 and Paragraphs [0005]-[0007] in Muenzer).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Publication No. 2011/0103001), Yu (US Publication No. 2016/0041590), Zhang (US Publication No. 2022/0272860), Zhai (US Patent No. 10064305), Muenzer (US Publication No. 2006/0187631), and in further view of Babb (US Patent No. 5332306).
Regarding claim 13, Chen in view of Yu, Zhang, Zhai, and Muenzer teaches the information processing system of claim 12, and further teaches (in Muenzer) wherein the engagement surface of each of the lockdown features (flat surface of 306a, 308a) comprises a landing surfaces surface (flat, inner portions of 306a, 308a), wherein each of the rails (104ac, 140bc) comprises a horizontal portion that comprises the engagement surface of the respective rail (top and bottom flat portions of 10ac, 104bc, including 104aca, 104bca), wherein, when the landing surfaces (flat surfaces of 306a, 308a) rest upon the horizontal portions (top and bottom flat portions of 10ac, 104bc), engagement between the landing surfaces (flat surfaces of 306a, 308a) and the horizontal portions (top and bottom flat portions of 10ac, 104bc) prevents upward and downward motion of the drive cage (300).
Chen in view of Yu, Zhai, and Muenzer does not teach wherein the engagement surface of each of the lockdown features comprises a ramp, wherein the ramps are configured to, as the drive cage is advanced towards the installed position, engage with and slide along corresponding ones of the horizontal portions until the landing surfaces rest upon the horizontal portions
However, Babb teaches wherein the engagement surface of each of the lockdown features (ledges 58, 60) comprise a ramp (ramped, rear-end surfaces of elongate ledges 58, 60) and a landing surface (top surfaces of 58, 60, including bosses 54, 56), wherein each of the rails (80, 82) comprise a horizontal portion (sidewalls 118, 120) that comprises the engagement surface of the respective rail (80, 82), wherein the ramps (ramped, rear-end surfaces of 58, 60) are configured to, as the drive cage (12) is advanced towards the installed position, engage with and slide along corresponding ones of the horizontal portions (118, 120) until the landing surfaces (top surfaces of 58, 60, including 54, 56) rest upon the horizontal portions (118, 120), wherein, when the landing surfaces (top surfaces of 58, 60, including 54, 56) rest upon the horizontal portions (118, 120), engagement between the landing surfaces (top surfaces of 58, 60, including 54, 56) and the horizontal portions (118, 120) prevents upward and downward motion for the drive cage (see Figures 2-5).
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 ramped surfaces of Babb to edges of the lockdown features of Chen as modified by Yu, Zhang, Zhai, and Muenzer. Doing so would have helped guide the lockdown features within the rails during the insertion process (see Figure 3 in Babb).
Regarding claim 14, Chen in view of Yu, Zhang, Zhai, Muenzer, and Babb teaches the information processing system of claim 13, and further teaches (in Muenzer) wherein the rails (104ac, 104bc) comprise vertical portions (edges of 104ac, 104bc) configured to, when the landing surfaces (flat portions of 306a, 308a, engaging top and bottom surfaces of 104ac, 140bc) rest upon the horizontal portions (top and bottom surfaces of 104ac, 140bc), abut lateral sides of the lockdown features (sides of vertical portions of 306a, 308a) and prevent lateral motions of the drive cage (300).
Claims 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Publication No. 2011/0103001) in view of Zhang (US Publication No. 2022/0272860), Becker (US Patent No. 5721669), and Zhai (US Patent No. 10064305).
Regarding claim 17, Chen discloses a walls of cage 20) coupled together to form a frame (see Figure 1) defining a plurality of internal bays (openings 22) configured to removably receive a plurality of media drives (HDDs 80), respectively, and thereby form a drive cage unit (20, 88) comprising the drive cage (20) and the media drives (80) mounted in all of the bays (22), wherein the drive cage unit (20, 80), in a state of the media drives (80) already mounted in the bays (22) is installable in and removable from a drive cage receptacle (opening 11) of an information processing device (chassis 10) by insertion or withdrawal through an opening (opening 11) of the drive cage receptacle (space within 10 accommodating 20) at a front panel of a chassis (front portion of 10; NOTE: see Paragraphs [0048]-[0049] of instant application) of the information processing device (10), wherein in an installed state of the drive cage (20) in the drive cage receptacle (space within 10 accommodating 20), the drive cage (20) extends across the drive cage receptacle (space accommodating 20) from a first side of the drive cage receptacle (first side of space accommodating 20) at a first chassis side wall of the chassis (first sidewall 13) to a second side of the drive cage receptacle (second side of space accommodating 20) at a second chassis side wall of the chassis (second sidewall 13) and from a top of the drive cage receptacle (top of 11) at a top chassis wall of the chassis (top wall of 10) to a bottom of the drive cage receptacle (bottom of 11) at a bottom chassis wall of the chassis (bottom wall of 10), the first and second chassis side walls (first and second 13) and the top and bottom chassis walls (top and bottom walls of 11) defining outer peripheries of the chassis (10); and one or more injector/ejector mechanisms (30) coupled to the frame (20) and configured to facilitate installation and removal of the drive cage unit (20, 80) by, in a state of the drive cage (20) in the drive cage receptacle (space accommodating 20), engaging with one or more corresponding engagement elements (tabs 131) coupled the chassis (housing of 10) of the information processing device (10), respectively.
Chen does not disclose wherein the drive cage unit, in a state of the media drives already mounted in the bays, together with the media drives mounted in the bays are removably insertable, together as a unit, into is installable in and removable from a drive cage receptacle of an information processing device by insertion or withdrawal through an opening of the drive cage receptacle at a front panel of a chassis of the information processing device such that all of the media drives physically connect with electrical connectors of the information processing device, respectively, by during installation of the drive cage unit and disconnect from the electrical connectors during removal of the drive cage unit.
However, Zhang teaches wherein the drive cage unit (15), in a state of the media drives (153) already mounted in the bays (space accommodating 153), together with the media drives (153) mounted in the bays (space accommodating 153) are removably insertable, together as a unit, into is installable in and removable from a drive cage receptacle (111) of an information processing device (9) by insertion or withdrawal through an opening (110) of the drive cage receptacle (111) at a front panel of a chassis (11) of the information processing device (9) such that all of the media drives (153) physically connect with electrical connectors (131) of the information processing device (9), respectively, by during installation of the drive cage unit (15) and disconnect from the electrical connectors (131) during removal of the drive cage unit (15).
Because Chen suggests that the drive cage (20) and the media drives (80) mounted in the bays (22) are insertable in and removable from the drive cage receptacle (11) together as a unit (see Figures 3-5), 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 media devices of the drive unit in Chen to connect/disconnect with electrical connectors of a backplane during the insertion and removal process of the drive cage unit, as taught in Zhang, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of interconnecting a plurality of media devices within a server device. Doing so would have also allowed the media device to interconnect with other devices within the server and would have decreased the assembly time (see Figure 2 in Zhang).
Chen in view of Zhang does not teach the one or more injector/ejector mechanisms converting actuation forces supplied to the injector/ejector mechanisms into insertion forces sufficient to force the drive cage to translate relative to the chassis into an installed position and physically connect all of the media drives with the electrical connectors, or ejection forces sufficient to force the drive cage to translate out from the installed position, and disconnect all of the media drives from the electrical connectors.
However, Becker discloses one or more injector/ejector mechanisms (gear train 242) configured to facilitate installation and removal of the rive cage unit by, in a state of a drive cage (drive carrier 100) in a drive cage receptacle (drive bay 126), engaging with a corresponding engagement element (rack profile 146) coupled to a chassis (chassis 104) of the information processing device (computer system), respectively, and converting actuation forces supplied to the injector/ejector mechanisms (242) into insertion forces sufficient to force the drive cage (100) to translate relative to the chassis (104) into an installed position and physically connect all of the media device (102) within the electrical connectors (122), or ejection forces (see col. 5, ln. 26-56) that force the drive cage (100) to translate out from the installed position and disconnected all of the media devices (102) from the electrical connectors (122; see Figures 5-10 and col. 5, ln. 26-56).
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 injector/ejector mechanism of Chen as modified by Zhang for the injector/ejector mechanism of Becker according to know methods to yield the predictable results of latching a drive cage to a chassis. Doing so would have also provided a sealed low-effort insertion/extraction mechanism that requires a constant force input and has a sufficient mechanical advantage to overcome electrical-connector mating forces, and be simple and inexpensive to manufacture (see col. 2, ln. 19-29 in Becker).
Chen in view of Zhang and Becker does not disclose wherein the drive cage is a hot-swappable drive cage.
However, Zhai teaches wherein a drive cage (electronic module carrier 100) is a hot swapable drive cage (see col. 4, ln. 3-19; col. 8, ln. 21-25).
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 media devices within Chen as modified by Zhang and Becker to be hot pluggable, resulting in the drive cage being hot pluggable, as taught in Zhai. Doing so would have allowed the media devices and drive cage to be safely inserted in or removed from the chassis without turning off the chassis power (see col. 4, ln. 3-19 in Zhai).
Regarding claim 18, Chen as modified by Zhang, Becker, and Zhai teaches the drive cage of claim 17, further teaches (in Becker) wherein each of the one or more injector/ejector mechanisms (Figure 4, 242) comprises a lever (actuation lever 248) and a gear assembly (see Figure 4) comprising one or more pinion gears (input driver gear 246, idle gear 250, output drive gear 252), wherein each of the engagement elements (146) comprise a rack (see Figures 1 and 5-10), wherein actuation of the lever (248) drives rotation of the pinion gears (246, 250, 252), and wherein rotation of the pinion gears (246, 250, 252) drives translation of the drive cage (100) relative to the chassis (104).
Regarding claim 20, Chen discloses a method, comprising: inserting a unit (comprised of cage 20 and HDDs 80) into a drive cage receptacle of an information processing device (space in 10 accommodating 20) through an opening (opening 11) of the drive cage receptacle (space in 10 accommodating 20) at a front panel of a chassis (front portion of 10; NOTE: see Paragraphs [0048]-[0049] of instant application) of the information processing device (10), the drive cage unit (20, 80) comprising a drive cage (20) that is carrying a plurality of media drives (HDDs 80) in bays (openings 22) defined in the drive cage (20), wherein, in a state of the drive cage unit (20, 80) in the drive cage receptacle (space accommodating 20), the drive cage (20) extends across the drive cage receptacle (space accommodating 20), from a first side of the drive cage receptacle (first side of space accommodating 20) at a first chassis side wall of the chassis (first 13 of 10) to a second side of the drive cage receptacle (second side of space accommodating 20) at a second chassis side wall of the chassis (second 13 of 10) and from a top of the drive cage receptacle (top of 11) at a top chassis wall of the chassis (top wall of 10) to a bottom of the drive cage receptacle (bottom of 11) at a bottom chassis wall of the chassis (bottom wall of 10), the first and second chassis side walls (first and second 13) and from the top and bottom chassis walls (top and bottom walls of 10) defining outer peripheries of the chassis (10); translating the drive cage unit (20, 80) farther into the drive cage receptacle (space accommodating 20) until one or more injector/ejector mechanisms (30) of the drive cage (20) engage with corresponding engagement elements (131) of the information processing device (10).
Chen does not disclose forcing the drive cage unit, in a state of the media drives already mounted in the bays, into an installed position in the drive cage receptacle and cause simultaneous physical engagement of the media drives with respective electrical connectors of the information processing device, and wherein, in the installed position of the drive cage unit, the injector/ejector mechanisms are actuatable to force the drive cage out of the installed position in the drive cage receptacle and cause simultaneous disengagement of the media drives from the electrical connectors of the information processing device.
However, Zhang teaches forcing the drive cage unit (15), in a state of the media drives (153) already mounted in the bays (spaces accommodating 153), into an installed position in the drive cage receptacle (111) and cause simultaneous physical engagement of the media drives (153) with respective electrical connectors (131) of the information processing device (9), and wherein, in the installed position of the drive cage unit (15), an injector/ejector mechanism (155) is actuatable to force the drive cage (15) out of the installed position in the drive cage receptacle (111) and cause simultaneous disengagement of the media drives (153) from the electrical connectors (131) of the information processing device (9).
Chen in view of Zhang does not explicitly teach supplying first actuation forces to the injector/ejector mechanisms to actuate the injector/ejector mechanisms in a first direction; converting the first actuation forces, by the injector/ejector mechanisms, into insertion forces sufficient to force the drive cage unit, in a state of the media devices already mounted in the bays, into an installed position in the drive cage receptacle and cause simultaneous physical engagement of the media drives with respective electrical connectors of the information processing device; wherein, in an installed position of the drive cage unit, the injector/ejector mechanisms are actuatable in a second direction to force the drive cage out of the installed position in the drive cage receptacle and cause simultaneous disengagement of the media drives from the electrical connectors of the information processing device.
However, Becker teaches translating a drive cage unit (driver carrier 100) into drive cage receptacle (drive bay 126) until one or more injector/ejector mechanisms (gear train 242) of the drive cage (100) engage with corresponding engagement elements (rack profile 146) of the information processing device (computer chassis 104); supplying first actuation forces (via actuation lever 248) to the injector/ejector mechanisms (242) to actuate the injector/ejector mechanisms (242) in a first direction; converting the first actuation forces, by the injector/ejector mechanisms (242), into insertion forces sufficient to force the drive cage unit (100), in a state of the media drives already mounted in the bays (space within 100), into an installed position in the drive cage receptacle (126) and cause engagement of the media drive (storage device 102) with electrical connectors (chassis jack 122) of the information processing device (104); supplying second actuation forces to the injector/ejector mechanisms (242) to actuate the injector/ejector mechanisms (242) in a second direction; wherein, in the installed position of the drive cage unit (100), the injector/ejector mechanisms (242) are actuatable in a second direction to force the drive cage unit (100) out of the installed position in the drive cage receptacle (126) and cause disengagement of the media drive (102) from the electrical connector (122) of the information processing device (100).
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 injector/ejector mechanism of Chen in view of Zhang for the injector/ejector mechanism of Becker, such that actuation of the injector/ejector mechanism (242 in Becker) resulted in simultaneous engagement (via rear connector 131 in Zhang) of the media drives (153 in Zhang, corresponding to 80 in Chen) and simultaneous disengagement (via rear connector 131 in Zhang) of the media drives (153 in Zhang, corresponding to 80 in Chen) with electrical connectors (connectors 131 in Zhang) of the information processing device (9 in Zhang), according to know methods to yield the predictable results of latching a drive cage to a chassis. Doing so would have also provided a sealed low-effort insertion/extraction mechanism that requires a constant force input and has a sufficient mechanical advantage to overcome electrical-connector mating forces, and be simple and inexpensive to manufacture (see col. 2, ln. 19-29 in Becker).
Chen in view of Zhang and Becker does not teach wherein the drive cage is a hot-swappable drive cage.
However, Zhai teaches wherein a drive cage (electronic module carrier 100) is a hot swapable drive cage (see col. 4, ln. 3-19; col. 8, ln. 21-25).
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 media devices within Chen as modified by Zhang and Becker to be hot pluggable, resulting in the drive cage being hot pluggable, as taught in Zhai. Doing so would have allowed the media devices and drive cage to be safely inserted in or removed from the chassis without turning off the chassis power (see col. 4, ln. 3-19 in Zhai).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Publication No. 2011/0103001), Zhang (US Publication No. 2022/0272860), Becker (US Patent No. 5721669), Zhai (US Patent No. 10064305), and in further view of Skirmont (US Publication No. 2015/0181743)
Regarding claim 19, Chen as modified by Zhang, Becker, and Zhai teaches the drive cage of claim 18, but does not teach wherein the one or more injector/ejector mechanisms comprise four injector/ejector mechanisms arranged at four corners of the drive cage, and wherein the respective levers of two of the injector/ejector mechanisms are coupled together by a handle and the respective levers of two others of the injector/ejectors mechanism are coupled together by a handle.
However, Skirmont teaches wherein the one or more injector/ejector mechanisms (Figures 2-5, ejectors 736 of 730A, 730B) comprise four injector/ejector mechanisms (ejectors 736) arranged at four corners of the drive cage (corners of blade 118, corresponding to 100 in Zhai), and wherein the respective levers (ejector handles 950 of 730A) of two of the injector/ejector mechanisms (736 of 730A; see Figure 5) are coupled together by a handle (bar 734 of 730A) and the respective levers (ejector handles 950 of 730B) of two others of the injector/ejector mechanisms (736 of 730A; see Figures 2 and 5) are coupled together by a handle (bar 734 of 730B).
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 arranged the injector/ejector mechanisms of Zhai as modified by Zhang, Becker, and Zhai at all four corners of the drive cage, as taught in Skirmont, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of injecting/ejecting a drive cage from a chassis and considering it is well established that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Doing so would have increased the mechanical advantage of the injecting/ejecting mechanism and would have helped ensure both sides of the drive cage are equally withdrawn from the chassis at the same time (see Paragraphs [0039], [0094] in Skirmont).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 claims, “the one or more pinion gears comprise a first pinion gear coupled to the lever and a second pinion gear linked to the first pinion gear such that the first and second pinion gears rotate together, and the corresponding engagement element comprises a multi-tiered rack comprising a first tier to engage with the first pinion gear and a second tier to engage with the second pinion gear, wherein the second tier protrudes farther than the first tier.”
Becker (US Patent No. 5721669) teaches a gear and pinion configuration similar to the claimed device, but does not teach wherein drive gear 248 is configured to engage a tiered rack -- the only gear-rack engagements is between driver gear 252 and rack 146.
Thus, the instant application would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6-7 would be allowable due to their dependency.
Conclusion
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
gsc
Prosecution Insights