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 Amendments
The amendments filed on 06/15/2026 have been received, to which the Applicant is thanked. Claim 20 has been cancelled and removed from consideration. The Applicant has overcome some of the 112(b) rejections of record, and they have been withdrawn; see below for remaining 112(b) rejection(s).
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered, but have not been found to be persuasive.
In response to Applicants argument on pages 8-10 regarding newly amended claim language,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments are directed to new amendments to the claim language, which have been addressed in the rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 recites the limitation “wherein the lock base is unable to be decouple from the..” of which the use of the word “decouple” is idiomatic, and should be the word, “decoupled”, given the context. Appropriate correction is required.
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
The cover portion as in claim 21 (no numerical identifier is given, and the Specifications filed 10/27/2023 states repeatedly that this element is not shown)
Internal mechanisms (no numerical identifier is given)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the amended limitation “wherein the first guiding arm delimits a motion path of the extended portions while the extended portions move between the first position and the second position”, to which upon a review of the Specifications filed 10/27/2023, while the Examiner was able to locate subject matter in ¶000125 pertaining to “Guiding base 226 may restrict movement of integration member 224 to a linear path between two positions, thereby contributing to a linear traversal of mating member 210.”, however, the Examiner was unable to locate subject matter that would shed light upon the claim limitation of “the first guiding arm delimits a motion path of the extended portions while the extended portions move between the first position and the second position”; it is unclear as to what elements the Applicant is claiming the limitations to apply to, from the lack of clarity of how either one of the guiding arms 216 is capable of being able to perform this claimed function of delimiting a motion path of the extended portions while the extended portions move between the first position and the second position. For examination purposes, the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand the limitation to be any delimiting of a motion path of the extended portions between a first position and a second position, by any type of guiding arm that guides. All dependent claims are similarly rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
The Examiner would additionally like to clarify that proof of this limitation by the Applicant within their disclosure at the time of filing is the bar, not using synonyms of similar words that are not present in the disclosure; the Applicant is to prove the disclosure of such a limitation, or have the 112(b) rejection remain.
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 1-5 & 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2023/0199994), hereinafter referred to as Chen, in view of Doglio et al (US 2023/0116870), hereinafter referred to as Doglio.
Regarding claim 1, Chen (US 2023/0199994) shows a security bezel for a chassis of a data processing system, the security bezel comprising:
a structural body (300, Fig. 3.1) for securing access to an interior of the chassis (210, Fig. 2), the structural body forming a partial covering for a two-dimensional surface (Fig. 3.2),
the structural body adapted to:
facilitate traversal of gases through the two-dimensional surface (¶0029, Lines 9-11), and
a locking latch (306/348, Fig. 3.4) adapted to reversibly secure the structural body to the chassis (Fig. 3.4-3.6 – the locking latch is adapted to reversibly secure the structural body to the chassis, by virtue of moving clockwise and reversibly, counter-clockwise);
the locking latch being formed as a separate piece from and is connected to the structural body (Fig. 3.4 – as the Applicant themselves outline the locking latch 112a, as seen in Fig. 1B to be formed as a separate piece from and is connected to the structural body 110, by showing the locking latch being a part, that of a corner, of the structural body 110, as does Chen show the locking latch 306/248 to be formed as separate pieces from and are connected to the structural body); and a lock space (Fig. 3.4) formed between the structural body and the locking latch (Fig. 3.4 – a lock space is formed between the structural body and the locking latch) to receive an interchangeable locking mechanism (Fig. 3.3, 3.4 - as the Applicant states an interchangeable locking mechanism is to be a token lock 212, as does Chen show with its interchangeable locking mechanism 340), the interchangeable locking mechanism being distinct from both the locking latch and the structural body (Fig. 3.4 – the interchangeable locking mechanism is distinct from both the locking latch and the structural body, as the interchangeable locking mechanism 340 is distinct from the locking latch, which comprises of a rotating element 306 and is movable between dynamic positions, while also making it distinct from the static structural body), the interchangeable locking mechanism being a token lock (Fig. 3.6 – absent a special definition from the Applicant on the term “token lock”, the interchangeable locking mechanism, which is a locking mechanism that can have its state changed from locked to unlock, is a token lock; e.g. a type of the interchangeable locking mechanism, as the Applicant stated in ¶00120 of the Specifications filed 10/27/2023) that can be removed from and inserted into the lock space (Fig. 3.5/3.6 – when being locked and unlocked, a part of the interchangeable locking mechanism 340 can be removed and inserted back into the lock space, as shown in the difference between Figs. 3.5 and 3.6), and the locking latch comprises a return spring (348, Fig. 3.5) that contacts a portion of the token lock (Fig. 3.6) and that is pushed against a body of the token lock when the locking latch is pushed toward the token lock while the token lock is inserted in the lock space (Fig. 3.6 – Fig. 3.6 shows the return spring pushing against a body of the token lock when the locking latch is pushed toward the token lock while the token lock is inserted in the lock space, as seen in Fig 3.6 with the return spring 348 pushing against the body of the token lock 340 when the locking latch is pushed toward the token lock while the token lock is in the lock space).
However, Chen lacks showing the structural body is adapted to resist deformation due to force applied to the security bezel to maintain the partial covering for the two-dimensional surface.
Doglio (US 2023/0116870), a security bezel for a data processing device, is in the same field of endeavor as Chen which is a security bezel for a data processing device.
Doglio teaches the structural body (300, Fig. 3) is to resist deformation due to force applied to the security bezel (Fig. 3 – the security bezel 300, or trim piece, comprises of its own structural body) to maintain the partial covering for the two-dimensional surface (Fig. 3, ¶0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the security bezel of Chen to incorporate the teachings of the security bezel of Doglio, which would provide a means to provide more rigidity to the chassis which can be susceptible to structural divergence from loading (¶0067).
Regarding claim 2, Chen shows wherein the locking latch comprises a retractable mating member (see Annotated Figure 1 – the retractable mating member is the structural member that facilitates retractability of element 340; the structure of the retractable mating member comprising all the structure in which element 340 occupies as it extends from the middle of the figure, to the top and bottom of the figure) comprising:
Receptacles (see Annotated Figure 1) for making a first connection (see Annotated Figure 1) between the interchangeable locking mechanism (340, Fig. 3.6) and the retractable mating member (342A, Fig. 3.6) to allow the interchangeable locking mechanism to move the retractable mating member between two positions (Fig. 3.5/3.6), and
extended portions (see Annotated Figure 1) for making a second connection (see Annotated Figure 1) between the chassis and the retractable mating member (see Annotated Figure 1) while the retractable mating member is in a first position of the two positions (3.5 / see Annotated Figure 1), the structural body being secured to the chassis while the second connection is in place (see Annotated Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
1074
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 3, Chen shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 2 including the lock space accommodating insertion of the interchangeable locking mechanism from both sides of the security bezel (Fig. 3.1/3.2 - regardless of being rotated or flipped, the lock space accommodates insertion of the interchangeable locking mechanism 340 from both sides of the security bezel, as the space is still present, whether flipped or not).
However, Chen lacks showing wherein the security bezel is reversible.
Doglio teaches wherein the security bezel (300, Fig. 4) is reversible (¶0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the security bezel of Chen to incorporate the teachings of the security bezel of Doglio, which would accommodate for the spacing of internal components that might impact the ability for the security bezel to be attached to the chassis (¶0001).
Regarding claim 4, Chen shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 3 including wherein the extended portions have an asymmetric shape (see Annotated Figure 1),
the asymmetric shape fixedly securing the structural body to the chassis while the security bezel is in a first orientation (Fig. 3.4), and not securing the structural body to the chassis while the security body is in a second orientation (Fig. 3.6),
where reversing the security bezel from the first orientation places the security bezel in the second orientation (Fig. 3.4-3.6 – the locking latch is adapted to reversibly secure the structural body to the chassis, by virtue of moving clockwise and reversibly, counter-clockwise).
Regarding claim 6, Chen shows wherein the retractable mating member further comprises:
a member body (see Annotated Figure 1 – the retractable mating member comprises of a physical member body, of which the structure of the retractable mating member comprising all the structure in which element 340 occupies, as it extends from the middle of the figure, to the top and bottom of the figure), and
a first guiding arm (see Annotated Figure 1) extending from the member body (see Annotated Figure 1), the first guiding arm comprising a receptacle of the receptacles (see Annotated Figure 1), and
wherein the extended portions extend from the member body (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Chen shows wherein the first guiding arm (see Annotated Figure 1) delimits a motion path of the extended portions as the extended portions move between the first position and the second position (¶0030, see Annotated Figure 1 – as the Applicant discloses the first guiding arm delimits a motion path of the extended portions while the extended portions move between the first position and the second position, as does Chen when the locking latch 306 delimits a motion path of the extended portions while the extended portions move between the first position and the second position, by virtue of the locking latch delimiting motion with the cavity in which element 340 occupies; see 112(b) above).
Regarding claim 8, Chen shows wherein the first guiding arm and the extended portions are on different sides of the member body (see Annotated Figure 1 – as the Applicant claims the first guiding arm 216 and the extended portions 214 are on different sides of the member body by showing them on different angular planes, as in Fig. 2B, as does Chen show with the first guiding arm and the extended portions being on different sides, or different angular planes, of the member body of the retractable mating member).
Regarding claim 9, Chen shows wherein the retractable mating member further comprises a second guiding arm (see Annotated Figure 1), the second guiding arm being on an opposite side of the lock space from the first guiding arm (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Chen shows further comprising the interchangeable locking mechanism (340, Fig. 3.5), the interchangeable locking mechanism adapted to be inserted into the lock space (Fig. 3.5 – the interchangeable locking mechanism 340 is adapted to be inserted into the lock space) and mechanically coupled to portions of the locking latch while inserted in the lock space (¶0030).
Regarding claim 11, Chen shows wherein while mechanically coupled to the portions of the locking latch, actuation of the interchangeable locking mechanism reversibly secures the security bezel to the chassis (¶0030/0043).
Regarding claim 21, Chen shows wherein the token lock (340, Fig. 3.6) comprises:
a lock base comprising one or more internal mechanisms (see Annotated Figure 2) that couple with one or more components of the locking latch (306/348, Fig. 3.6) when the lock base is inserted into the locking space (Fig. 3.6); and
a cover portion (see Annotated Figure 2 - as the Applicant shows any cover portion that attaches to the lock base, and together with the lock base, encases the one or more internal mechanisms within the token lock to render the one or more internal mechanism inaccessible until the cover portion is removed, by not showing the cover portion at all, as does Chen show; see Drawing objection above) that attaches to the lock base (see Annotated Figure 2) and, together with the lock base, encases the one or more internal mechanisms within the token lock to render the one or more internal mechanism inaccessible until the cover portion is removed (see Annotated Figure 2 – the cover portion encases the one or more internal mechanisms within the token lock to render the one or more internal mechanism inaccessible until the cover portion is removed; see Drawing Objection above), wherein the lock base is unable to be decouple from the locking latch when the one or more internal mechanisms are inaccessible (Fig. 3.5 – when locked and the token lock 340, which comprises of the lock base, is in the locked position, the lock base is unable to be decoupled from the locking latch when the one or more internal mechanisms are inaccessible due to being lockingly engaged).
PNG
media_image2.png
459
541
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2023/0199994), hereinafter referred to as Chen, in view of Doglio et al (US 2023/0116870), hereinafter referred to as Doglio, in further view of Files et al (US10,811,201), hereinafter referred to as Files.
Regarding claim 5, Chen shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 2 including
wherein the return spring (348, Fig. 3.5) adapted to return the extended portions to the first position from a second position of the two positions (Fig. 3.5/3.6 – the spring is adapted to return the extended portions to the first position and a second position, given that it is a spring and it is adapted to do so).
However, Chen lacks showing wherein the locking latch comprises a return spring adapted to return the extended portions to the first position from a second position of the two positions while the interchangeable locking mechanism is not applying any force to the retractable mating member.
Files (US 10,811,201), a spring device for a data processing machine, is in the same field of endeavor as Chen which is a spring device for a data processing.
Files teaches showing wherein the latch (702/802, Fig. 8) comprises a return spring (802, Fig. 8) adapted to return the extended portions (804, Fig. 8) to the first position (Fig. 8) from a second position (Fig. 8) of the two positions (Fig. 8) while the mechanism is not applying any force to the member (Fig. 8, Col. 18, Lines 5-11 – the spring 802 naturally biases the extended portions 804 to the first position, being fully extended, from a second position, that being any position where the mechanism 702 is forced down, of the two positions, while the mechanism 702 is not applying any force to the retractable mating member which comprises of the extended portions 804(1) and 804(2)).
It would have been obvious to one of obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the latch and return spring of Chen to incorporate the teachings of the latch and return spring of Files, which would provide spring arrangement that would continually bias the return spring in a way that would provide constant application of force to lift up, to provide a more secure fitting that can withstand the force of heated air entering and leaving the chassis (Col. 18, Lines 5-11).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2023/0199994), hereinafter referred to as Chen, in view of Doglio et al (US 2023/0116870), hereinafter referred to as Doglio.
Regarding claim 12, Chen (US 2023/0199994) shows an enclosure comprising:
a chassis (300, Fig. 3.1); and
a security bezel (300, Fig. 3.1) for the chassis of a data processing system (200, Fig. 2), the security bezel comprising:
a structural body (Fig. 3.1 – the security bezel 300 comprises of a structural body) for securing access to an interior of the chassis (Fig. 2, Fig. 3.4-3.6), the structural body forming a partial covering for a two-dimensional surface (Fig. 3.1), the structural body adapted to:
facilitate traversal of gases through the two-dimensional surface (¶0029, Lines 9-11), and
a locking latch (306/348, Fig. 3.4) adapted to reversibly secure the structural body to the chassis (Fig. 3.4-3.6 – the locking latch is adapted to reversibly secure the structural body to the chassis, by virtue of moving clockwise and reversibly, counter-clockwise);
the locking latch being formed as a separate piece from and is connected to the structural body (Fig. 3.4 – as the Applicant themselves outline the locking latch 112a, as seen in Fig. 1B to be formed as a separate piece from and is connected to the structural body 110, by showing the locking latch being a part, that of a corner, of the structural body 110, as does Chen show the locking latch 306/248 to be formed as separate pieces from and are connected to the structural body); and a lock space (Fig. 3.4) formed between the structural body and the locking latch (Fig. 3.4 – a lock space is formed between the structural body and the locking latch) to receive an interchangeable locking mechanism (Fig. 3.3, 3.4 - as the Applicant states an interchangeable locking mechanism is to be a token lock 212, as does Chen show with its interchangeable locking mechanism 340), the interchangeable locking mechanism being distinct from both the locking latch and the structural body (Fig. 3.4 – the interchangeable locking mechanism is distinct from both the locking latch and the structural body, as the interchangeable locking mechanism 340 is distinct from the locking latch, which comprises of a rotating element 306 and is movable between dynamic positions, while also making it distinct from the static structural body), the interchangeable locking mechanism being a token lock (Fig. 3.6 – absent a special definition from the Applicant on the term “token lock”, the interchangeable locking mechanism, which is a locking mechanism that can have its state changed from locked to unlock, is a token lock; e.g. a type of the interchangeable locking mechanism, as the Applicant stated in ¶00120 of the Specifications filed 10/27/2023) that can be removed from and inserted into the lock space (Fig. 3.5/3.6 – when being locked and unlocked, a part of the interchangeable locking mechanism 340 can be removed and inserted back into the lock space, as shown in the difference between Figs. 3.5 and 3.6), and the locking latch comprises a return spring (348, Fig. 3.5) that contacts a portion of the token lock (Fig. 3.6) and that is pushed against a body of the token lock when the locking latch is pushed toward the token lock while the token lock is inserted in the lock space (Fig. 3.6 – Fig. 3.6 shows the return spring pushing against a body of the token lock when the locking latch is pushed toward the token lock while the token lock is inserted in the lock space, as seen in Fig 3.6 with the return spring 348 pushing against the body of the token lock 340 when the locking latch is pushed toward the token lock while the token lock is in the lock space).
However, Chen lacks showing the structural body is to resist deformation due to force applied to the security bezel to maintain the partial covering for the two-dimensional surface.
Doglio (US 2023/0116870), a security bezel for a data processing device, is in the same field of endeavor as Chen which is a security bezel for a data processing device.
Doglio teaches the structural body (300, Fig. 3) is to resist deformation due to force applied to the security bezel (Fig. 3 – the security bezel 300, or trim piece, comprises of its own structural body) to maintain the partial covering for the two-dimensional surface (Fig. 3, ¶0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the security bezel of Chen to incorporate the teachings of the security bezel of Doglio, which would provide a means to provide more rigidity to the chassis which can be susceptible to structural divergence from loading (¶0067).
Regarding claim 13, Chen shows wherein the locking latch comprises a retractable mating member (see Annotated Figure 1 – the retractable mating member is a member that facilitates retractability) comprising:
Receptacles (see Annotated Figure 1) for making a first connection (see Annotated Figure 1) between the interchangeable locking mechanism (340, Fig. 3.6) and the retractable mating member (342A, Fig. 3.6) to allow the interchangeable locking mechanism to move the retractable mating member between two positions (Fig. 3.5/3.6), and
extended portions (see Annotated Figure 1) for making a second connection (see Annotated Figure 1) between the chassis and the retractable mating member (see Annotated Figure 1) while the retractable mating member is in a first position of the two positions (Fig. 3.5 / see Annotated Figure 1), the structural body being secured to the chassis while the second connection is in place (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, Chen shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 13 including the lock space accommodating insertion of the interchangeable locking mechanism from both sides of the security bezel (Fig. 3.1/3.2 - regardless of being rotated or flipped, the lock space accommodates insertion of the interchangeable locking mechanism 340 from both sides of the security bezel, as the space is still present, whether flipped or not).
However, Chen lacks showing wherein the security bezel is reversible.
Doglio teaches wherein the security bezel (300, Fig. 4) is reversible (¶0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the security bezel of Chen to incorporate the teachings of the security bezel of Doglio, which would accommodate for the spacing of internal components that might impact the ability for the security bezel to be attached to the chassis (¶0001).
Regarding claim 15, Chen shows wherein the extended portions have an asymmetric shape (see Annotated Figure 1),
the asymmetric shape fixedly securing the structural body to the chassis while the security bezel is in a first orientation (Fig. 3.5), and not securing the structural body to the chassis while the security body is in a second orientation (Fig. 3.6),
where reversing the security bezel from the first orientation places the security bezel in the second orientation (Fig. 3.4-3.6 – the locking latch is adapted to reversibly secure the structural body to the chassis, by virtue of moving clockwise and reversibly, counter-clockwise).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2023/0199994), hereinafter referred to as Chen, in view of Doglio et al (US 2023/0116870), hereinafter referred to as Doglio, in further view of Files et al (US10,811,201), hereinafter referred to as Files.
Regarding claim 16, Chen shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 2 including
wherein the return spring (348, Fig. 3.5) adapted to return the extended portions to the first position from a second position of the two positions (Fig. 3.5/3.6 – the spring is adapted to return the extended portions to the first position and a second position, given that it is a spring and it is adapted to do so).
However, Chen lacks showing wherein the locking latch comprises a return spring adapted to return the extended portions to the first position from a second position of the two positions while the interchangeable locking mechanism is not applying any force to the retractable mating member.
Files (US 10,811,201), a spring device for a data processing machine, is in the same field of endeavor as Chen which is a spring device for a data processing.
Files teaches showing wherein the latch (702/802, Fig. 8) comprises a return spring (802, Fig. 8) adapted to return the extended portions (804, Fig. 8) to the first position (Fig. 8) from a second position (Fig. 8) of the two positions (Fig. 8) while the mechanism is not applying any force to the member (Fig. 8, Col. 18, Lines 5-11 – the spring 802 naturally biases the extended portions 804 to the first position, being fully extended, from a second position, that being any position where the mechanism 702 is forced down, of the two positions, while the mechanism 702 is not applying any force to the retractable mating member which comprises of the extended portions 804(1) and 804(2)).
It would have been obvious to one of obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the latch and return spring of Chen to incorporate the teachings of the latch and return spring of Files, which would provide spring arrangement that would continually bias the return spring in a way that would provide constant application of force to lift up, to provide a more secure fitting that can withstand the force of heated air entering and leaving the chassis (Col. 18, Lines 5-11).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2023/0199994), hereinafter referred to as Chen, in view of Doglio et al (US 2023/0116870), hereinafter referred to as Doglio.
Regarding claim 17, Chen (US 2023/0199994) shows a data processing system comprising:
a chassis (200, Fig. 2);
hardware components positioned in the chassis (¶0025); and
a security bezel (300, Fig. 3.1) for the chassis of a data processing system (Fig. 2), the security bezel comprising:
a structural body (Fig. 3.1 – the security bezel 300 comprises of a structural body) for securing access to an interior of the chassis (Fig. 3.4-3.6 – elements 306 and 340 are to lock and unlock the structural body with the chassis), the structural body forming a partial covering for a two-dimensional surface (Fig. 3.1), the structural body adapted to: facilitate traversal of gases through the two-dimensional surface (¶0029, Lines 9-11),
and
a locking latch (306/348, Fig. 3.4) adapted to reversibly secure the structural body to the chassis (Fig. 3.4-3.6 – the locking latch is adapted to reversibly secure the structural body to the chassis, by virtue of moving clockwise and reversibly, counter-clockwise)
the locking latch being formed as a separate piece from and is connected to the structural body (Fig. 3.4 – as the Applicant themselves outline the locking latch 112a, as seen in Fig. 1B to be formed as a separate piece from and is connected to the structural body 110, by showing the locking latch being a part, that of a corner, of the structural body 110, as does Chen show the locking latch 306/248 to be formed as separate pieces from and are connected to the structural body); and a lock space (Fig. 3.4) formed between the structural body and the locking latch (Fig. 3.4 – a lock space is formed between the structural body and the locking latch) to receive an interchangeable locking mechanism (Fig. 3.3, 3.4, as the Applicant states an interchangeable locking mechanism is to be a token lock 212, as does Chen show with its interchangeable locking mechanism 340), the interchangeable locking mechanism being distinct from both the locking latch and the structural body (Fig. 3.4 – the interchangeable locking mechanism is distinct from both the locking latch and the structural body, as the interchangeable locking mechanism 340 is distinct from the locking latch, which comprises of a rotating element 306 and is movable between dynamic positions, while also making it distinct from the static structural body), the interchangeable locking mechanism being a token lock (Fig. 3.6 – absent a special definition from the Applicant on the term “token lock”, the interchangeable locking mechanism, which is a locking mechanism that can have its state changed from locked to unlock, is a token lock; e.g. a type of the interchangeable locking mechanism, as the Applicant stated in ¶00120 of the Specifications filed 10/27/2023) that can be removed from and inserted into the lock space (Fig. 3.5/3.6 – when being locked and unlocked, a part of the interchangeable locking mechanism 340 can be removed and inserted back into the lock space, as shown in the difference between Figs. 3.5 and 3.6), and the locking latch comprises a return spring (348, Fig. 3.5) that contacts a portion of the token lock (Fig. 3.6) and that is pushed against a body of the token lock when the locking latch is pushed toward the token lock while the token lock is inserted in the lock space (Fig. 3.6 – Fig. 3.6 shows the return spring pushing against a body of the token lock when the locking latch is pushed toward the token lock while the token lock is inserted in the lock space, as seen in Fig 3.6 with the return spring 348 pushing against the body of the token lock 340 when the locking latch is pushed toward the token lock while the token lock is in the lock space).
However, Chen lacks showing the structural body is to resist deformation due to force applied to the security bezel to maintain the partial covering for the two-dimensional surface.
Doglio (US 2023/0116870), a security bezel for a data processing device, is in the same field of endeavor as Chen which is a security bezel for a data processing device.
Doglio teaches the structural body (300, Fig. 3) is to resist deformation due to force applied to the security bezel (Fig. 3 – the security bezel 300, or trim piece, comprises of its own structural body) to maintain the partial covering for the two-dimensional surface (Fig. 3, ¶0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the security bezel of Chen to incorporate the teachings of the security bezel of Doglio, which would provide a means to provide more rigidity to the chassis which can be susceptible to structural divergence from loading (¶0067).
Regarding claim 18, Chen shows wherein the locking latch comprises a retractable mating member (see Annotated Figure 1 – the retractable mating member is a member that facilitates retractability) comprising:
Receptacles (see Annotated Figure 1) for making a first connection (see Annotated Figure 1) between the interchangeable locking mechanism (340, Fig. 3.6) and the retractable mating member (342A, Fig. 3.6) to allow the interchangeable locking mechanism to move the retractable mating member between two positions (Fig. 3.5/3.6), and
extended portions (see Annotated Figure 1) for making a second connection (see Annotated Figure 1) between the chassis and the retractable mating member (see Annotated Figure 1) while the retractable mating member is in a first position of the two positions (3.5 / see Annotated Figure 1), the structural body being secured to the chassis while the second connection is in place (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, Chen shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 17 including the lock space accommodating insertion of the interchangeable locking mechanism from both sides of the security bezel (Fig. 3.1/3.2 - regardless of being rotated or flipped, the lock space accommodates insertion of the interchangeable locking mechanism 340 from both sides of the security bezel, as the space is still present, whether flipped or not).
However, Chen lacks showing wherein the security bezel is reversible.
Doglio teaches wherein the security bezel (300, Fig. 4) is reversible (¶0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the security bezel of Chen to incorporate the teachings of the security bezel of Doglio, which would accommodate for the spacing of internal components that might impact the ability for the security bezel to be attached to the chassis (¶0001).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References Cited.
The following prior art teaches related server locking mechanisms:
US 2007/0279858 – Grady discloses a server rack with a latch and lock
US 11,665,840 – O’Donnell discloses a security latch system for a server rack
US 8,840,095 – Rust discloses a lock and latch for a server rack
US 11,840,862 – Wang discloses a latch and lock system for a server rack
US 2014/0084764 – Doglio discloses a locking mechanism for a server rack
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 RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights