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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4, 11 & 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on December 16, 2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims in the reply filed on December 16, 2025 is acknowledged. Argument for claim 19 restriction was found persuasive, therefore the restriction on claim 19 has been withdrawn. Claim 20, which was previously withdrawn by applicant by virtue of dependency on claim 19, is now included since claim 19’s restriction was withdrawn. Updated Group II after withdrawing the restriction of claim 19. Group II now consists of claims 4, 11, & 21. Claim 21 remains part of the Group II restriction even though the restriction on claim 19 has been withdrawn, for the reasoning that follows. The traversal is on the grounds that Groups I and II are not mutually exclusive. This is not found persuasive because Group I (Claims 6-7, 13-14 & 17) and Group II (Claims 4, 11 & 21), both related to an apparatus, method, and article for shock detection method, but are mutually exclusive. Group I focuses on a threshold mechanical force that is proportional to the spring tension force between a first and second member in a first state. Group II focuses on a threshold mechanical force that is inversely proportional to a mechanical resistance between a first and second member in a first state (second state in amended claim 4), a first state in original claim 11, and second state (first state in amended claim 21). The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants; and (3) the invention as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the invention(s) as claimed are materially different in mode of operation, and function, or effect, and do not overlap in scope, which would cause a search burden on the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al (US 2023/0328878 A1, Pub. Date Oct. 12, 2023, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding independent claim 19, Wang, teaches:
A shock detector comprising ([Abstract], [0003], [0019], [0024], [0034], [0036], [0041], & [0045]-[0050]: discloses an intrusion detection apparatus that functions by detecting a physical state change, reads on the functional mechanics of the shock detector):
a first member comprising a first hook (Figs. 4A & 4B; [0045]: first hooking member 404); and
a second member comprising a second hook (Figs. 4A & 4B; [0045]: second hooking member 405);
wherein:
the first member and the second member are configured such that the first member mechanically couples to the second member via the first hook and the second hook in a first state (Figs. 4A & 4B; [0046]-[0047]) such that the first member and the second member experience a spring tension force between one another (Figs. 4A & 4B; [0046]-[0047]) and complete an electrical circuit ([0046]-[0048]); and
the first member and the second member are further configured such that the first member mechanically uncouples from the second member in a second state (Fig. 8; [0049]) to create an impedance discontinuity (Fig. 8; [0049]: physical separation breaks the circuit, thereby creating the impedance discontinuity).
PNG
media_image1.png
1157
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1209
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding dependent claim 20, Wang, teaches:
The shock detector of Claim 19 ([Abstract], [0003], [0019], [0024], [0034], [0036], [0041], & [0045]-[0050]), wherein a threshold mechanical force is proportional to the spring tension force ([0045]-[0050]) between the first member and the second member in the first state ([0045]-[0050]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yazzie et al. (US 2019/0257793 A1, Pub. Date Aug. 22, 2019, hereinafter Yazzie), in view of Chaiken et al. (US 2024/0280524 A1, Fil. Date Feb. 17, 2023, hereinafter Chaiken).
Regarding independent claim 1, Yazzie, teaches:
An information handling system comprising ([Abstract], [0001], [0019]-[0022], [0029] & [0124]: discloses an electronic assembly (information handling system) for mechanical failure monitoring, detection, and classification):
a circuit board (Figs. 4 & 31; [0022], [0026], [0038]-[0040], [0099], [0102], [0104]-[0107], [0109]-[0111] & [Claim 7]: discloses an electronic assembly (information handling system) containing a circuit board (e.g., circuit board 136) identified as a motherboard or PCB);
Yazzie, is silent in regard to:
a shock detector mounted on the circuit board, the shock detector configured to complete an electrical circuit in a first state in an absence of a threshold mechanical force applied to the information handling system and to have an impedance discontinuity in a second state in a presence of the threshold mechanical force; and a detection circuit electrically coupled to the shock detector and configured to detect whether the impedance discontinuity exists.
However, Chaiken, further teaches:
a shock detector mounted on the circuit board (Fig. 1; [0004], [0006], [0023] & [0027]: teaches solder balls 116 acting as a shock/strain detector mounted on the circuit board, specifically designed to physically react (crack) under mechanical strain/force), the shock detector configured to complete an electrical circuit in a first state in an absence of a threshold mechanical force applied to the information handling system ([0026]-[0029]: in a first state (absence of threshold force/strain), the solder balls 116 are intact and complete a continuous electrical circuit in a series configuration allowing a signal to pass) and to have an impedance discontinuity in a second state in a presence of the threshold mechanical force ([0027]: in the second state (presence of threshold mechanical force), the solder ball cracks, creating the impedance discontinuity (open circuit)); and a detection circuit electrically coupled to the shock detector and configured to detect whether the impedance discontinuity exists ([0027]-[0028]: discloses a detection circuit (management controller 112) electrically coupled to the solder balls 116 and configured to detect whether an impedance discontinuity exists).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electronic assembly/information handling system of Yazzie by incorporating the mechanical strain detection system of Chaiken. A POSITA would be motivated to integrate Chaiken’s management controller and series-configured solder ball detection circuit into Yazzie’s information handling system to provide a real-time, electrical detection mechanism for mechanical shock and strain. This combination of prior art elements according to known methods would provide and allow the system to continuously self-monitor for cracks caused by rough handling or manufacturing stresses, improving the overall reliability and diagnostic capabilities of Yazzie’s electronic assembly without requiring external acoustic sensors, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Yazzie, teaches:
The information handling system of Claim 1 ([Abstract], [0001], [0019]-[0022], [0029] & [0124]),
Yazzie, is silent in regard to:
wherein the detection circuit is further configured to log an event associated with an occurrence of the impedance discontinuity.
However, Chaiken, further teaches:
wherein the detection circuit is further configured to (Fig. 2; [0008], [0015], [0020]-[0021], [0025], [0030], [Claim 10] & [Claim 12]: management controller constitutes the detection circuit) log an event associated with an occurrence of the impedance discontinuity (Fig. 2; [0032], [Claim 4], [Claim 8] & [Claim 12]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electronic assembly/information handling system of Yazzie by incorporating the mechanical strain detection system of Chaiken. A POSITA would be motivated to integrate Chaiken’s management controller (detection circuit) to log the impedance discontinuity into Yazzie’s information handling system to provide a real-time, electrical detection mechanism for mechanical shock and strain. This combination of prior art elements according to known methods would provide and allow the system to continuously log and self-monitor for cracks caused by rough handling or manufacturing stresses, improving the overall reliability and diagnostic capabilities of Yazzie’s electronic assembly, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Claims 2-3 & 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yazzie, in view of Chaiken, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0328878 A1, Pub. Date Oct. 12, 2023, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Yazzie, teaches:
The information handling system of Claim 1 ([Abstract], [0001], [0019]-[0022], [0029] & [0124]),
Yazzie, in combination with Chaiken, are silent in regard to:
wherein the shock detector comprises:
a first member comprising a first hook; and
a second member comprising a second hook;
wherein:
the first member and the second member are configured such that the first member mechanically couples to the second member via the first hook and the second hook in the first state such that the first member and the second member experience a spring tension force between one another and complete the electrical circuit; and
the first member and the second member are further configured such that the first member mechanically uncouples from the second member in the second state to create the impedance discontinuity.
However, Wang, further teaches:
wherein the shock detector comprises ([Abstract], [0003], [0019], [0024], [0034], [0036], [0041], & [0045]-[0050]: discloses an intrusion detection apparatus 218 that functions by detecting a physical state change, reads on the functional mechanics of the shock detector):
a first member comprising a first hook (Figs. 4A & 4B; [0045]: first hooking member 404); and
a second member comprising a second hook (Figs. 4A & 4B; [0045]: second hooking member 405);
wherein:
the first member and the second member are configured such that the first member mechanically couples to the second member via the first hook and the second hook in the first state (Figs. 4A & 4B; [0046]-[0047]) such that the first member and the second member experience a spring tension force between one another (Figs. 4A & 4B; [0046]-[0047]) and complete the electrical circuit ([0046]-[0048]); and
the first member and the second member are further configured such that the first member mechanically uncouples from the second member in the second state (Fig. 8; [0049]) to create the impedance discontinuity (Fig. 8; [0049]: physical separation breaks the circuit, thereby creating the impedance discontinuity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the mechanical switch mechanism of Wang, which translates a physical shift into an open/closed circuit, as the shock detector in the information handling system of Chaiken, who teaches the utility and method of detecting such a mechanical state by measuring an impedance discontinuity, to reliably trigger the impedance discontinuity upon encountering a mechanical force event, to the electronic assembly/information handling system of Yazzie. This combination of prior art elements according to known methods would provide and allow the system to continuously self-monitor for cracks caused by rough handling or manufacturing stresses (mechanical failure detection), improving the overall reliability and diagnostic capabilities of Yazzie’s electronic assembly without requiring external acoustic sensors, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Yazzie, teaches:
The information handling system of Claim 2 ([Abstract], [0001], [0019]-[0022], [0029] & [0124]),
Yazzie, in combination with Chaiken, are silent in regard to:
wherein the threshold mechanical force is proportional to the spring tension force between the first member and the second member in the first state.
However, Wang, further teaches:
wherein the threshold mechanical force is proportional to the spring tension force ([0045]-[0050]) between the first member and the second member in the first state ([0045]-[0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the mechanical disclosure of Wang, with the basic mechanical knowledge of a POSITA, which translates a physical shift into an open/closed circuit, as the shock detector in the information handling system of Chaiken, who teaches the utility and method of detecting such a mechanical state by measuring an impedance discontinuity, to reliably trigger the impedance discontinuity upon encountering a mechanical force event, to the electronic assembly/information handling system of Yazzie. Wang discloses the mechanism relies on a spring element 406 that is compressed in the first state and expanded when disengaged in the second state. The “threshold mechanical force is proportional to the spring tension force,” is an inherent property of spring-loaded mechanical switches, governed by Hooke’s Law (F = -kx). A POSITA would inherently understand that the mechanical force required to overcome the engagement of the hooking members and trigger the expansion of the spring to the second state is directly proportional to the physical tension/compression force stored within that spring in the first state, and would yield predictable results. See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Yazzie, teaches:
The information handling system of Claim 1 ([Abstract], [0001], [0019]-[0022], [0029] & [0124]),
Yazzie, is silent in regard to:
wherein the detection circuit comprises a management controller configured to:
output a known signal on a first pin of the management controller
receive an input signal on a second pin of the management controller
determine if the impedance discontinuity exists based on whether the input signal is equivalent to the known signal.
However, Chaiken, further teaches:
wherein the detection circuit comprises a management controller configured to (Fig. 2; [Abstract], [0006]-[0008], [0018], [0025]-[0026], [0028]-[0029], [Claim 1], [Claim 10] & [Claim 12]):
output a known signal on a first pin of the management controller (Fig. 2; [0003], [0006]-[0008], [0017], [0019]-[0023], [0026], [0028], [0031], [0035], [Claim 1], [Claim 2], [Claim 5], [Claim 6] & [Claim 10])
receive an input signal on a second pin of the management controller ([0007]-[0008], [0026], [0032], [Claim 2], [Claim 3], [Claim 6], [Claim 7], [Claim 10] & [Claim 11]: general-purpose input (GPI) pin of the management controller 112)
determine if the impedance discontinuity exists based on whether the input signal is equivalent to the known signal (Fig. 2; [0007]-[0008], [0027]-[0028], [0031], [Claim 2], [Claim 6] & [Claim 10]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the impedance discontinuity detection circuit of Chaiken, which uses a management controller outputting a known signal on a first pin and checking for equivalence on a second pin, and electrically couple it to the electronic assembly of Yazzie, using detection circuitry. A POSITA would recognize that Chaiken’s detection circuit is applicable to detecting open/closed circuit states (impedance discontinuities) across any physical hardware path. Combining the monitored component (from Chaiken’s solder balls to Yazzie’s detection circuitry) according to known methods, would motivate experimentation and optimization, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Yazzie, in combination with Chaiken, are silent in regard to:
electrically coupled the shock detector;
electrically coupled to the shock detector; and
However, Wang, further teaches:
electrically coupled the shock detector ([Abstract], [0003], [0005], [0018]-[0019], [0024], [0033]-[0036], [0040]-[0041], [0043]-[0050], [Claim 1], [Claim 8] & [Claim 10]: returning the circuit path from the shock detector (Wang’s apparatus/switch) to the second pin of the management controller (Chaiken) completes the impedance detection loop);
electrically coupled to the shock detector ([Abstract], [0003], [0005], [0018]-[0019], [0024], [0033]-[0036], [0040]-[0041], [0043]-[0050], [Claim 1], [Claim 8] & [Claim 10]: similar to rationale above, returning the circuit path from the shock detector (Wang’s apparatus/switch) to the second pin of the management controller (Chaiken) completes the impedance detection loop); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the impedance discontinuity detection circuit of Chaiken, which uses a management controller outputting a known signal on a first pin and checking for equivalence on a second pin, and electrically couple it to the shock detector (mechanical apparatus/switch) of Wang. A POSITA would recognize that Chaiken’s detection circuit is applicable to detecting open/closed circuit states (impedance discontinuities) across any physical hardware path. Substituting the monitored component (from Chaiken’s solder balls to Wang’s mechanical apparatus/switch (shock detector)) according to known methods, would motivate experimentation and optimization, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Yazzie, teaches:
The information handling system of Claim 5 ([Abstract], [0001], [0019]-[0022], [0029] & [0124]),
Yazzie, is silent in regard to:
wherein:
the first pin is a general-purpose output pin of the management controller;
and the second pin is a general-purpose input pin of the management controller.
However, Chaiken, further teaches:
wherein:
the first pin is a general-purpose output pin of the management controller (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0007]-[0008], [0026]-[0029], [0031]-[0032], [Claim 3], [Claim 7] & [Claim 11]);
and the second pin is a general-purpose input pin of the management controller (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0007]-[0008], [0026]-[0029], [0031]-[0032], [Claim 3], [Claim 7] & [Claim 11]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the impedance discontinuity detection circuit of Chaiken, which uses a general-purpose output (GPO) pin as the first pin and a general-purpose input (GPI) pin as the second pin for the management controller outputting a known signal on a first pin and checking for equivalence on a second pin, and electrically couple it to the shock detector (mechanical switch) of Wang, and Yazzie’s electronic assembly. Combining Chaiken’s management controller circuit with Wang’s mechanical switch (shock detector), and further with Yazzie’s assembly, according to known methods, would motivate experimentation and optimization, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Claims 8-10 & 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaiken, in view of Wang.
Regarding independent claim 8, Chaiken, teaches:
A method comprising (Fig. 1; [Title], [Abstract], [0004], [0006]-[0007], [0012], [0023], [0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0034] & [0036]):
detecting, with a detection circuit electrically coupled to the shock detector ([0025]-[0029] & [Claim 10]), whether the impedance discontinuity exists ([0025]-[0029] & [Claim 10]).
Chaiken, is silent in regard to:
completing an electrical circuit in a first state with a shock detector mounted on a circuit board in an absence of a threshold mechanical force applied to an information handling system;
creating an impedance discontinuity with the shock detector in a second state in a presence of the threshold mechanical force; and
However, Wang, further teaches:
completing an electrical circuit in a first state (Figs. 6-7; [Abstract] & [0045]-[0050]: discloses contact with conductive pads that completes the electrical circuit through electrical switch 214 in a first state (chassis closed)) with a shock detector mounted on a circuit board ([Abstract], [0003], [0018]-[0019], [0025], [0033]-[0036], [0045]-[0050], [0052] & [Claim 1]: the first portion 502 of chassis 504 is coupled to remaining portions of the chassis 504 of the information handling system 202, the conductive gasket 412 which is in contact with the conductive pad 216. The contact completes the electrical circuit through electrical switch 214/intrusion detection apparatus 218 (constitutes the shock detector) on a circuit board/PCB) in an absence of a threshold mechanical force applied to an information handling system (Figs. 6-7; [Abstract] & [0046]-[0050]: discloses the first state (chassis closed) in the absence of the threshold mechanical force (force that would open the chassis));
creating an impedance discontinuity with the shock detector in a second state (Figs. 8-9; [Abstract] & [0045]-[0050]: discloses a separation that creates an open circuit (second state), which is an impedance discontinuity) in a presence of the threshold mechanical force (Figs. 8-9; [Abstract] & [0045]-[0050]: the threshold mechanical force is the force required to overcome the spring tension, uncoupling of the chassis and disengage the hooks, opening the chassis); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the impedance discontinuity detection method taught by Chaiken to monitor the physical state of the mechanical pin/switch/apparatus disclosed by Wang. A POSITA would recognize that Chaiken’s method of utilizing a detection circuit to check for an impedance discontinuity is applicable to detecting the open/closed state of any physical circuit path. Therefore, motivating experimentation and optimization by combining prior art elements, where it is obvious the combination to couple Chaiken’s detection circuit to Wang’s mechanical switch/apparatus to detect a mechanical force event (e.g., the physical removal or shock of a chassis cover), according to known methods, would yield predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Chaiken, teaches:
The method of Claim 8 (Fig. 1; [Title], [Abstract], [0004], [0006]-[0007], [0012], [0023], [0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0034] & [0036]),
Chaiken, is silent in regard to:
wherein the shock detector comprises:
a first member comprising a first hook; and
a second member comprising a second hook;
wherein:
the first member and the second member are configured such that the first
member mechanically couples to the second member via the first hook and the second hook in a first state such that the first member and second member experience a spring tension force between one another and complete the electrical circuit; and
the first member and the second member are further configured such that the first member mechanically uncouples from the second member in the second state to create the impedance discontinuity.
However, Wang, further teaches:
wherein the shock detector comprises ([Abstract], [0003], [0019], [0024], [0034], [0036], [0041], & [0045]-[0050]: discloses an intrusion detection apparatus 218 that mechanically functions by detecting a physical state change, reads on the functional mechanics of the shock detector):
a first member comprising a first hook (Figs. 4A & 4B; [0045]: first hooking member 404); and
a second member comprising a second hook (Figs. 4A & 4B; [0045]: second hooking member 405);
wherein:
the first member and the second member are configured such that the first member mechanically couples to the second member via the first hook and the second hook in a first state (Figs. 4A & 4B; [0046]-[0047]) such that the first member and second member experience a spring tension force between one another (Figs. 4A & 4B; [0046]-[0047]) and complete the electrical circuit ([0046]-[0048]); and
the first member and the second member are further configured such that the first member mechanically uncouples from the second member in the second state (Fig. 8; [0049]) to create the impedance discontinuity (Fig. 8; [0049]: physical separation breaks the circuit, thereby creating the impedance discontinuity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the mechanical switch mechanism of Wang, which translates a physical shift into an open/closed circuit, as the shock detector in the information handling system of Chaiken, and to perform the mechanical actuation steps within the impedance discontinuity detection of Chaiken, who further teaches the utility and method of detecting such a mechanical state by measuring an impedance discontinuity, to reliably trigger the impedance discontinuity upon encountering a mechanical force event. A POSITA would recognize that Wang’s spring-loaded engaging/disengaging hooks provide a reliable, predictable mechanism that can physically transition between the first state (complete circuit) and second state (broken circuit/impedance discontinuity) that Chaiken’s circuit is designed to detect. This combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, would provide and allow the system to continuously self-monitor for cracks caused by rough handling or manufacturing stresses (mechanical failure detection), improving the overall reliability and diagnostic capabilities, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Chaiken, teaches:
The method of Claim 9 (Fig. 1; [Title], [Abstract], [0004], [0006]-[0007], [0012], [0023], [0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0034] & [0036]),
Chaiken, is silent in regard to:
wherein the threshold mechanical force is proportional to the spring tension force between the first member and the second member in the first state.
However, Wang, further teaches:
wherein the threshold mechanical force is proportional to the spring tension force ([0045]-[0050]) between the first member and the second member in the first state ([0045]-[0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the mechanical disclosure of Wang, with the basic mechanical knowledge of a POSITA, which translates a physical shift into an open/closed circuit, as the shock detector in the information handling system of Chaiken, who teaches the utility and method of detecting such a mechanical state by measuring an impedance discontinuity, to reliably trigger the impedance discontinuity upon encountering a mechanical force event, to the electronic assembly/information handling system of Chaiken. Wang discloses the mechanism relies on a spring element 406 that is compressed in the first state and expanded when disengaged in the second state. The “threshold mechanical force is proportional to the spring tension force,” is an inherent property of spring-loaded mechanical switches, governed by Hooke’s Law (F = -kx (represents restoring force acting in the opposite direction of displacement)). A POSITA would inherently understand that the mechanical force required to overcome the engagement of the hooking members and trigger the expansion of the spring to the second state is directly proportional to the physical tension/compression force stored within that spring in the first state, and would yield predictable results. See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Chaiken, teaches:
The method of Claim 8 (Fig. 1; [Title], [Abstract], [0004], [0006]-[0007], [0012], [0023], [0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0034] & [0036]), further comprising (Fig. 2; [Abstract], [0006]-[0008], [0018], [0025]-[0026], [0028]-[0029], [Claim 1], [Claim 10] & [Claim 12]):
outputting a known signal on a first pin of the management controller (Fig. 2; [0003], [0006]-[0008], [0017], [0019]-[0023], [0026], [0028], [0031], [0035], [Claim 1], [Claim 2], [Claim 5], [Claim 6] & [Claim 10])
receiving an input signal on a second pin of the management controller ([0007]-[0008], [0026], [0032], [Claim 2], [Claim 3], [Claim 6], [Claim 7], [Claim 10] & [Claim 11]: general-purpose input (GPI) pin of the management controller 112)
determining if the impedance discontinuity exists based on whether the input signal is equivalent to the known signal (Fig. 2; [0007]-[0008], [0027]-[0028], [0031], [Claim 2], [Claim 6] & [Claim 10]).
Chaiken, is silent in regard to:
electrically coupled the shock detector;
electrically coupled to the shock detector; and
However, Wang, further teaches:
electrically coupled to the shock detector ([Abstract], [0003], [0005], [0018]-[0019], [0024], [0033]-[0036], [0040]-[0041], [0043]-[0050], [Claim 1], [Claim 8] & [Claim 10]: returning the circuit path from the shock detector (Wang’s apparatus/switch) to the second pin of the management controller (Chaiken) completes the impedance detection loop);
electrically coupled to the shock detector ([Abstract], [0003], [0005], [0018]-[0019], [0024], [0033]-[0036], [0040]-[0041], [0043]-[0050], [Claim 1], [Claim 8] & [Claim 10]: similar to rationale above, returning the circuit path from the shock detector (Wang’s apparatus/switch) to the second pin of the management controller (Chaiken) completes the impedance detection loop); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the impedance discontinuity detection circuit of Chaiken, which uses a management controller outputting a known signal on a first pin and checking for equivalence on a second pin, and electrically couple it to the shock detector (mechanical apparatus/switch) of Wang. A POSITA would recognize that Chaiken’s detection circuit is applicable to detecting open/closed circuit states (impedance discontinuities) across any physical hardware path. Substituting the monitored component (from Chaiken’s solder balls to Wang’s mechanical apparatus/switch (shock detector)) according to known methods, would motivate experimentation and optimization, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Chaiken, teaches:
The method of Claim 12 (Fig. 1; [Title], [Abstract], [0004], [0006]-[0007], [0012], [0023], [0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0034] & [0036]), wherein:
the first pin is a general-purpose output pin of the management controller (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0007]-[0008], [0026]-[0029], [0031]-[0032], [Claim 3], [Claim 7] & [Claim 11]); and
the second pin is a general-purpose input pin of the management controller (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0007]-[0008], [0026]-[0029], [0031]-[0032], [Claim 3], [Claim 7] & [Claim 11]).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Chaiken, teaches:
The method of Claim 8 (Fig. 1; [Title], [Abstract], [0004], [0006]-[0007], [0012], [0023], [0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0034] & [0036]), wherein the detection circuit is further configured (Fig. 2; [0008], [0015], [0020]-[0021], [0025], [0030], [Claim 10] & [Claim 12]: management controller constitutes the detection circuit) to log an event associated with an occurrence of the impedance discontinuity (Fig. 2; [0032], [Claim 4], [Claim 8] & [Claim 12]).
Regarding independent claim 15, Chaiken, teaches:
An article of manufacture comprising (Fig. 1; [Title], [Abstract], [0002], [0004], [0006]-[0008], [0012], [0023], [0025], [0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0035], [0036] & [Claim 10]):
a computer readable medium (Fig. 1; [Title], [Abstract], [0002], [0004], [0006]-[0008], [0012], [0014]-[0015], [0019], [0021], [0023], [0025], [0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0035], [0036] & [Claim 10]); and
computer-executable instructions carried on the computer readable medium (Fig. 1; [Title], [Abstract], [0002], [0004], [0006]-[0008], [0012], [0014]-[0015], [0019], [0021], [0023], [0025]-[0028], [0030]-[0035], [0036] & [Claim 10]), the instructions readable by a processor (Fig. 2; [0008], [0015], [0020]-[0021], [0025]-[0028], [0030], [Claim 10] & [Claim 12]), the instructions, when read and executed, for causing the processor to, in a detection circuit of an information handling system (Fig. 2; [0008], [0015]-[0016], [0018]-[0023], [0025]-[0030], [Claim 10] & [Claim 12]):
determine if an impedance discontinuity exists in an electrical circuit (Fig. 2; [Abstract], [0006]-[0008], [0015]-[0016], [0018]-[0023], [0025]-[0031], [Claim 1], [Claim 2], [Claim 6], [Claim 10] & [Claim 12]),
Chaiken, is silent in regard to:
wherein a shock detector mounted on a circuit board is configured to complete the electrical circuit in a first state in an absence of a threshold mechanical force applied to the information handling system and have an impedance discontinuity in a second state in a presence of the threshold mechanical force.
However, Wang, further teaches:
wherein a shock detector mounted on a circuit board ([Abstract], [0003], [0018]-[0019], [0025], [0033]-[0036], [0045]-[0050], [0052] & [Claim 1]: the first portion 502 of chassis 504 is coupled to remaining portions of the chassis 504 of the information handling system 202, the conductive gasket 412 which is in contact with the conductive pad 216. The contact completes the electrical circuit through electrical switch 214/intrusion detection apparatus 218 (constitutes the shock detector) on a circuit board/PCB) is configured to complete the electrical circuit in a first state (Figs. 6-7; [Abstract] & [0045]-[0050]: discloses contact with conductive pads that completes the electrical circuit through electrical switch 214 in a first state (chassis closed)) in an absence of a threshold mechanical force applied to the information handling system (Figs. 6-7; [Abstract], [0033]-[0037] & [0046]-[0050]: discloses the first state (chassis closed) in the absence of the threshold mechanical force (force that would open the chassis)) and have an impedance discontinuity in a second state (Figs. 8-9; [Abstract], [0033]-[0037] & [0045]-[0050]: discloses a separation that creates an open circuit (second state), which is an impedance discontinuity) in a presence of the threshold mechanical force (Figs. 8-9; [Abstract], [0033]-[0037] & [0045]-[0050]: the threshold mechanical force is the force required to overcome the spring tension, uncoupling of the chassis and disengage the hooks, opening the chassis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the impedance discontinuity detection method taught by Chaiken to monitor the physical state of the mechanical pin/switch/apparatus disclosed by Wang. A POSITA would recognize that Chaiken’s method of utilizing a detection circuit to check for an impedance discontinuity is applicable to detecting the open/closed state of any physical circuit path. Therefore, motivating experimentation and optimization by combining prior art elements, where it is obvious the combination to couple Chaiken’s detection circuit to Wang’s mechanical switch/apparatus to detect a mechanical force event (e.g., the physical removal or shock of a chassis cover), according to known methods, would yield predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 16, Chaiken, teaches:
The article of Claim 15 (Fig. 1; [Title], [Abstract], [0002], [0004], [0006]-[0008], [0012], [0023], [0025], [0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0035], [0036] & [Claim 10]), the instructions for further causing the processor to (Fig. 2; [0008], [0015]-[0016], [0018]-[0023], [0025]-[0035], [Claim 10] & [Claim 12]):
output a known signal on a first pin of a management controller (Fig. 2; [0003], [0006]-[0008], [0017], [0019]-[0023], [0026], [0028], [0031], [0035], [Claim 1], [Claim 2], [Claim 5], [Claim 6] & [Claim 10])
receive an input signal on a second pin of the management controller ([0007]-[0008], [0026], [0032], [Claim 2], [Claim 3], [Claim 6], [Claim 7], [Claim 10] & [Claim 11]: general-purpose input (GPI) pin of the management controller 112)
determine if the impedance discontinuity exists based on whether the input signal is equivalent to the known signal (Fig. 2; [0007]-[0008], [0027]-[0028], [0031], [Claim 2], [Claim 6] & [Claim 10]).
Chaiken, is silent in regard to:
electrically coupled to the shock detector;
electrically coupled to the shock detector; and
However, Wang, further teaches:
electrically coupled to the shock detector ([Abstract], [0003], [0005], [0018]-[0019], [0024], [0033]-[0036], [0040]-[0041], [0043]-[0050], [Claim 1], [Claim 8] & [Claim 10]: returning the circuit path from the shock detector (Wang’s apparatus/switch) to the second pin of the management controller (Chaiken) completes the impedance detection loop);
electrically coupled to the shock detector ([Abstract], [0003], [0005], [0018]-[0019], [0024], [0033]-[0036], [0040]-[0041], [0043]-[0050], [Claim 1], [Claim 8] & [Claim 10]: similar to rationale above, returning the circuit path from the shock detector (Wang’s apparatus/switch) to the second pin of the management controller (Chaiken) completes the impedance detection loop); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the impedance discontinuity detection circuit of Chaiken, which uses a management controller outputting a known signal on a first pin and checking for equivalence on a second pin, and electrically couple it to the shock detector (mechanical apparatus/switch) of Wang. A POSITA would recognize that Chaiken’s detection circuit is applicable to detecting open/closed circuit states (impedance discontinuities) across any physical hardware path. Substituting the monitored component (from Chaiken’s solder balls to Wang’s mechanical apparatus/switch (shock detector)) according to known methods, would motivate experimentation and optimization, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Chaiken, teaches:
The article of claim 16 (Fig. 1; [Title], [Abstract], [0002], [0004], [0006]-[0008], [0012], [0023], [0025], [0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0035], [0036] & [Claim 10]), wherein:
the first pin is a general-purpose output pin of the management controller (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0007]-[0008], [0026]-[0029], [0031]-[0032], [Claim 3], [Claim 7] & [Claim 11]); and
the second pin is a general-purpose input pin of the management controller (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0007]-[0008], [0026]-[0029], [0031]-[0032], [Claim 3], [Claim 7] & [Claim 11]).
Regarding dependent claim 18, Chaiken, teaches:
The article of Claim 15 (Fig. 1; [Title], [Abstract], [0002], [0004], [0006]-[0008], [0012], [0023], [0025], [0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0035], [0036] & [Claim 10]), the instructions for further causing the processor (Fig. 2; [0008], [0015]-[0016], [0018]-[0023], [0025]-[0035], [Claim 10] & [Claim 12]) to log an event associated with an occurrence of the impedance discontinuity (Fig. 2; [0032], [Claim 4], [Claim 8] & [Claim 12]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mao (CN206522017U) discloses an intelligent control type Internet of Things lock of technical field, including lock shell, lock ring, extension spring, circuit board, and shock sensor. Harper, Jr. (US6471526B1) discloses an electrical connector with strain relief feature. Bechstein et al. (US2023/0273687A1) discloses a mechanically sensitive power efficient styles for an electronic device detecting forces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGO NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:30-5:00 pm EST.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/HUGO NAVARRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858 02/26/2026
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 3/3/2026