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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 24, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 24, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the elongate holes of Olesiewicz and Keffeler (325 in Olesiewicz, hole adjacent 312 in Keffeler) cannot be considered an elongate hole, because “it is merely a hole left behind from cutting out the rail surfaces” and not the same as the elongate hole from Figure 3 of the present application (Arguments, pages 10-11). Examiner acknowledges the difference in function of the elongate holes mentioned in the specifications, but notes the resulting structure of Olesiewicz as modified by Keffeler is still an elongate hole. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant also argues the elongate holes of Olesiewicz and Keffeler do not provide any “functional cooperation with the elastic members (Arguments, page 10). However, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Additionally, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). While Examiner agrees neither Olesiewicz nor Keffeler teach an elastic member extending through the elongate hole, Examiner notes that limitation is not present in the independent claims, and even if it was, Kumachi, Brusati, and Liu teach elastic members extending through elongate holes -- for example, see rejection to claim 2 below.
Therefore, claims 1-10, 12, and 14-20 stand rejected, and claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, lines 2-3, “the other end of the supporting part” should read --the other end of each of the supporting parts--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-10 and 12-15 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 8 recites the limitation "the first slide rail" in claim 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the elastic member will be interpreted as having a first slide rail and a second slide rail, similar to the embodiment shown in Figure 7 of the instant application.
Claims 9-10 and 12-15 are rejected due to their dependency.
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, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olesiewicz (US Publication No. 2023/0116549) in view of Kumachi (US Publication No. 2013/0215568) and Keffeler (US Publication No. 2013/0176676).
Regarding claim 1, Olesiewicz discloses an expansion assembly, comprising: a first baffle (channel 345A); a second baffle (channel 345B), opposite to the first baffle (345A); and a baffle assembly (see Figures 3A), comprising two side plates (divider walls 310) opposite to each other (see Figures 3A), wherein the two side plates (first and second 310) are connected to the first baffle (345A) and the second baffle (345B).
Olesiewicz does not disclose a plurality of elastic members disposed on each of the two side plates respectively, each of the elastic member comprises a supporting part, and each of the supporting parts projects from one of the two side plates towards the other one of the two side plates.
However, Kumachi teaches two side plates (side plate 230 and medium plate 242a) and a plurality of elastic members (elastic elements 50, 62; see Figures 4, 11-12 and Paragraph [0064]) disposed on each of the two side plates (230, 242a) respectively, each of the elastic member (50, 62) comprises a supporting part (middle portions of 50, 62), and each of the supporting parts (middle portions of 50, 62) projects from one of the two side plates (230, 242a) towards the other one of the two side plates (230, 242a).
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 plurality of elastic members in Kumachi to the sidewalls in Olesiewicz, such that the elastic members were engaged with the electronic modules in Olesiewicz (see Figure 4 in Olesiewicz). Doing so would have provided a grounding function to the electronic assembly to provide a tolerance against static electricity and EMI (see Paragraph [0057] in Kumachi).
PNG
media_image1.png
584
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Olesiewicz suggests wherein each of the two side plates (310) comprises a first slide rail (rails defining openings 325), the first slide rail (rails defining 325) projects from one side surface of one of the two side plates (outer side of first 310) towards the other one of the two side plates (second 310; see annotated Figure 3A below), wherein each of the two side plates (310) comprises an elongate hole (divider openings 325), the first slide rail (rails adjacent 325) is adjacent to the elongate hole (325), Olesiewicz in view of Kumachi does not explicitly teach wherein each of the two side plates comprises a first slide rail, and the first slide rail projects from one side surface of one of the two side plates towards that other one of the two side plates, and wherein for each of the two side plates, the elastic members are disposed on opposite sides of the first slide rail, wherein each of the two side plates comprises an elongate hole, the first slide rail is adjacent to the elongate hole.
PNG
media_image2.png
478
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Keffeler teaches two side plates (Figures 3-5, chassis support members 304, comprised of support members 404, 504) and elastic members (springs 404), wherein each of the two side plates (404, 504) comprises a first slide rail (rail surfaces 312; Paragraph [0052], “Rail surfaces 312 are provided on both the first chassis support member 408 and the second chassis support member 504 to support storage device modules 208 on each side of a chassis support member 304”), and the first slide rail (312) projects from one side surface of one of the two side plates (inner surface of first 304 defining storage bay) towards that other one of the two side plates (inner surface of opposite 304 defining storage bay), and wherein for each of the two side plates (members 304 defining storage bay), the elastic members (404) are disposed on opposite sides of the first slide rail (312; see Figures 3-5), wherein each of the two side plates (members 304 defining bay) comprises an elongate hole (holes adjacent 312; see Figures 3-5), the first slide rail (312) is adjacent to the elongate hole (holes adjacent 312).
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 slide rails and elongate openings of Keffeler to the side plates between the elastic members of Olesiewicz as modified by Kumachi, as taught in Keffeler. Doing so would have provided/guided the storage modules within the storage bays during the installation process (see Paragraphs [0044], [0052]-[0053] in Keffeler).
Regarding claim 5, Olesiewicz in view of Kumachi and Keffeler teaches the expansion assembly according to claim 1, and further teaches (in Kumachi) wherein each of the plurality of elastic members (50, 62) comprises a base (connected portion of 50, 62) and an extension arm (angled portion of 50, 62), the extension arm (angled portion of 50, 62) extends from the base (connected portion of 50, 62), the supporting part (middle portion of 50, 62) extends from one side edge of the extension arm (angled portion of 50, 62), and an angle is formed between the supporting part (middle portion of 50, 62) and the extension arm (angled portion of 50, 62).
Regarding claim 16, Olesiewicz in view of Kumachi and Keffeler teaches an electronic device, comprising (in Olesiewicz): the expansion assembly (electronic system 210) according to claim 1, wherein the first baffle (345A), the second baffle (345B), and the two side plates (310) define a card insertion area (device bay 330B); and an electronic component (Figure 4C, electronic modules 225), used to be accommodated in the card insertion area (330B; see Figures 3A-4C) and supported or clamped by the elastic members (50, 62 in Kumachi).
Regarding claim 17, Olesiewicz in view of Kumachi and Keffeler teaches the electronic device according to claim 16, and further teaches (in Olesiewicz) wherein the electronic component (225) is a first expansion card (first 225; see Paragraphs [0030]-[0044]) or a second expansion card (second 225; see Paragraphs [0030]-[0044] and Figure 4C), and the supporting parts (middle portions of 50, 62) of the plurality of elastic members (50, 62 in Kumachi aligned with each 225 in Olesiewicz) are used to support a bottom of the first expansion card or hold two sides of the second expansion card (sides of second 225).
Claims 2-3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olesiewicz (US Publication No. 2023/0116549), Kumachi (US Publication No. 2013/0215568), Keffeler (US Publication No. 2013/0176676), and in further view of Liu (US Patent No. 6304457).
Regarding claim 2, Olesiewicz in view of Kumachi and Keffeler teaches the expansion assembly according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the supporting part of one of the plurality of elastic members is deformably disposed in the elongated hole of one of the two side plates.
However, Liu teaches two side plates (Figures 4-5, board bodies 112, corresponding to 310 in Olesiewicz) and a plurality of elastic members (grounding clips 114) comprising a supporting part (first section 120 of 114), wherein each of the two side plates (112) comprises an elongated hole (elongate slot 116), and the supporting part (120) of one of the plurality of elastic members (114) is deformably disposed in the elongated hole (116) of one of the two side plates (112).
Because Kumachi and Liu both teach elastic arms for the purposes of grounding an electronic device, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the elastic members in Olesiewicz as modified by Kumachi and Keffeler for the elastic members in Liu, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of grounding an electronic device with an elastic element. Doing so would have also provided the assembly with elastic, grounding elements that are easy to assemble to the sidewall (see Figures 4-5 in Liu).
Regarding claim 3, Olesiewicz in view of Kumachi and Keffeler teaches the expansion assembly according to claim 1, and further teaches (in Kumachi) wherein each of the plurality of elastic members (elastic elements 50) comprises two docking parts (ends of 50 connected to 230, 242a), and the two docking parts (ends of 50) are respectively connected to two ends of the supporting part (middle portions of 50).
Olesiewicz in view of Kumachi and Keffeler does not teach each of the two side plates comprises two fixing parts, the two fixing parts are respectively disposed on two ends of each of the two side plates, the elongated hole is provided between the two fixing parts, the two docking parts are disposed on the two fixing parts, respectively, and the supporting part of each of the plurality of elastic members is deformably disposed in the elongated hole.
However, Liu teaches two side plates (Figures 4-5, board bodies 112, corresponding to 310 in Olesiewicz) and a plurality of elastic members (grounding clips 114) comprising a supporting part (portion of 114 between 128, including first section 120 and steps 126) and two docking parts (holes 128), wherein each of the two side plates (board bodies 112, corresponding to 310 in Olesiewicz) comprises two fixing parts (securing posts 118) and an elongated hole (elongate holes 116), the two fixing parts (118) are respectively disposed on two ends of each of the two side plates (ends of 112), the elongated hole (116) is provided between the two fixing parts (118), the two docking parts (128) are disposed on the two fixing parts (118), respectively, and the supporting part (portion of 114 between 128, including first section 120 and steps 126) of each of the plurality of elastic members (114) is deformably disposed in the elongated hole (116).
Because Kumachi and Liu both teach elastic arms for the purposes of grounding an electronic device, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the elastic members in Olesiewicz as modified by Kumachi and Keffeler for the elastic members in Liu, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of grounding an electronic device with an elastic element. Doing so would have also provided the assembly with elastic, grounding elements that are easy to assemble to the sidewall (see Figures 4-5 in Liu).
Regarding claim 18, Olesiewicz in view of Kumachi and Keffeler teaches the electronic device according to claim 16, but does not teach wherein the side plate comprises a fixing part, and the elongated hole is adjacent to the fixing part; and the elastic member comprises a docking part, the docking part is disposed on the fixing part, and the supporting part is deformably disposed in the elongated hole.
However, Liu teaches two side plates (Figures 4-5, board bodies 112, corresponding to 310 in Olesiewicz) and a plurality of elastic members (grounding clips 114) comprising a supporting part (first section 120 of 114), wherein the side plate (112) comprises an elongated hole (elongate slot 116) and a fixing part (securing post 118), and the elongated hole (116) is adjacent to the fixing part (118); and the elastic member (114) comprises a docking part (securing sections 124), the docking part (124) is disposed on the fixing part (118), and the supporting part (120) is deformably disposed in the elongated hole (116).
Because Kumachi and Liu both teach elastic arms for the purposes of grounding an electronic device, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the elastic members in Olesiewicz as modified by Kumachi and Keffeler for the elastic members in Liu, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of grounding an electronic device with an elastic element. Doing so would have also provided the assembly with elastic, grounding elements that are easy to assemble to the sidewall (see Figures 4-5 in Liu).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olesiewicz (US Publication No. 2023/0116549), Kumachi (US Publication No. 2013/0215568), Keffeler (US Publication No. 2013/0176676), Liu (US Patent No. 6304457), and in further view of Justice (US Patent No. 6299266).
Regarding claim 4, Olesiewicz in view of Kumachi, Keffeler, and Liu teaches the expansion assembly according to claim 3, and further teaches (in Liu) wherein the supporting part (portion of 114 between 128, including first section 120 and steps 126) of each of the plurality of elastic members (plurality of 114 in Liu connected to 310 in Olesiewicz) comprises an outer protrusion part (120) and a plurality of inner protrusion parts (Figure 4, inner protrusions adjacent 128) arranged alternately in sequence (see Figure 4), the outer protrusion part (120) projects from one side surface of one of the two side plates (310 in Olesiewicz) towards the other one of the two side plates (opposite 310 in Olesiewicz), and each of the plurality of inner protrusion parts (inner protrusions adjacent 128) projects from the other side surface of one of the two side plates (rear side of 310 in Olesiewicz, corresponding to rear side of 112 in Kumachi) away from the other one of the two side plates (opposite 310 in Olesiewicz).
Olesiewicz in view of Kumachi, Keffeler, and Liu does not teach wherein the supporting part of each of the plurality of elastic members comprises a plurality of outer protrusion parts and a plurality of inner protrusion parts arranged alternately in sequence.
However, Justice teaches a plurality of elastic members (resilient members 220) comprising a supporting part (portion of 220 between studs 240), wherein the supporting part (portion of 220 between studs 240) of each of the plurality of elastic member (220) comprises a plurality of outer protrusion parts and a plurality of inner protrusion parts arranged alternately in sequence (see Figures 2-3).
Because Kumachi, Liu, and Justice all teach elastic arms for the purposes of grounding an electronic device, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the support parts in Olesiewicz as modified by Kumachi, Keffeler, and Liu to include the outer protrusion parts and inner protrusion parts taught in Justice, considering a change in shape has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed feature is significant. See MPEP § 2144.04 and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Doing so would have also increased the amount of contact points while reducing area of contact between the electronic device and elastic member, providing for a more balanced insertion/withdrawal process (see Figure 3 in Justice, see Figures 4-5 in Liu).
Claims 1, 5-7, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olesiewicz (US Publication No. 2023/0116549) in view of Brusati (US Patent No. 5467254) and Keffeler (US Publication No. 2013/0176676) (NOTE: Claims 16 and 18 rejected in the alternative).
Regarding claim 1, Olesiewicz discloses an expansion assembly, comprising: a first baffle (channel 345A); a second baffle (channel 345B), opposite to the first baffle (345A); and a baffle assembly (see Figures 3A), comprising two side plates (divider walls 310) opposite to each other (see Figures 3A), wherein the two side plates (first and second 310) are connected to the first baffle (345A) and the second baffle (345B).
Olesiewicz does not disclose a plurality of elastic members disposed on each of the two side plates respectively, each of the elastic member comprises a supporting part, and each of the supporting parts projects from one of the two side plates towards the other one of the two side plates.
However, Brusati teaches two side plates (tracks 50) and a plurality of elastic members (grounding strip 40) disposed on each of the two side plates (50) respectively, each of the elastic members (40) comprises a supporting part (Figure 3, comprised of portions 80, 81, 82), and each of the supporting parts (80, 81, 82) projects from one of the two side plates (50; see Figures 5-7) towards the other one of the two side plates (50).
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 plurality of elastic members of Brusati to the sidewalls of Olesiewicz, such that a pair of elastic members were engaged with each of the electronic modules in Olesiewicz (see Figure 4 in Olesiewicz). Doing so would have provided a grounding function to the electronic assembly to provide a tolerance against static electricity and EMI (see col. 2-3 in Brusati).
While Olesiewicz suggests wherein each of the two side plates (310) comprises a first slide rail (rails defining openings 325), the first slide rail (rails defining 325) projects from one side surface of one of the two side plates (outer side of first 310) towards the other one of the two side plates (second 310; see annotated Figure 3A above), wherein each of the two side plates (310) comprises an elongate hole (divider openings 325), the first slide rail (rails adjacent 325) is adjacent to the elongate hole (325), Olesiewicz in view of Brusati does not explicitly teach wherein each of the two side plates comprises a first slide rail, and the first slide rail projects from one side surface of one of the two side plates towards that other one of the two side plates, and wherein for reach of the two side plates, the elastic members are disposed on opposite sides of the first slide rail, wherein each of the two side plates comprises an elongate hole, the first slide rail is adjacent to the elongate hole..
However, Keffeler teaches two side plates (Figures 3-5, chassis support members 304, comprised of support members 404, 504) and elastic members (springs 404), wherein each of the two side plates (404, 504) comprises a first slide rail (rail surfaces 312; Paragraph [0052], “Rail surfaces 312 are provided on both the first chassis support member 408 and the second chassis support member 504 to support storage device modules 208 on each side of a chassis support member 304”), and the first slide rail (312) projects from one side surface of one of the two side plates (inner surface of first 304 defining storage bay) towards that other one of the two side plates (inner surface of opposite 304 defining storage bay), and wherein for each of the two side plates (members 304 defining storage bay), the elastic members (404) are disposed on opposite sides of the first slide rail (312; see Figures 3-5), wherein each of the two side plates (members 304 defining storage bay) comprises an elongate hole (holes adjacent 312; see Figures 3-5), the first slide rail (312) is adjacent to the elongate hole (holes adjacent 312).
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 slide rails and elongate openings of Keffeler to the side plates between the elastic members of Olesiewicz as modified by Brusati, as taught in Keffeler. Doing so would have provided/guided the storage modules within the storage bays during the installation process (see Paragraphs [0044], [0052]-[0053] in Keffeler).
Regarding claim 5, Olesiewicz in view of Brusati and Keffeler teaches the expansion assembly according to claim 1, and further teaches (in Brusati) wherein each of the plurality of elastic members (40) comprises a base (section 41) and an extension arm (segment 79), the extension arm (79) extends from the base (41), the supporting part (80, 81, 82) extends from one side edge of the extension arm (79), and an angle is formed between the supporting part (80, 81) and the extension arm (79).
Regarding claim 6, Olesiewicz in view of Brusati and Keffeler teaches the expansion assembly according to claim 5, and further teaches (in Brusati) wherein the supporting part (80, 81, 82) has an inclined surface (81), and an angle is formed between the inclined surface (81) and the extension arm (79).
Regarding claim 7, Olesiewicz in view of Brusati and Keffeler teaches the expansion assembly according to claim 5, and further teaches (in Brusati) wherein each of the two side plates (50 in Brusati, corresponding to 310 in Olesiewicz) comprises another elongated hole (first cavity 60) arranged in sequence with the elongate hole (second cavity 60) in a direction (see Figure 3), each of the plurality of elastic members (40) comprises two extension arms (first and second 79) extending from the base (41), each of the two extension arms (first and second 79) is provided with the supporting part (80, 81, 82), and the two supporting parts (80, 81, 82) are deformably disposed in the two elongated holes (60), respectively.
Because Olesiewicz and Keffeler also teach a plurality of elongate holes adjacent the slide rails, 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 elastic members of Bursati within the elongate holes of Olesiewicz as modified by Bursati and Keffeler, as taught in Bursati, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of arranged elastic members through a sidewall to contact an electronic component for the purpose of grounding (see col. 2-3 in Brusati), and considering, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 16, Olesiewicz in view of Brusati and Keffeler teaches an electronic device, comprising (in Olesiewicz): the expansion assembly (electronic system 210) according to claim 1, wherein the first baffle (345A), the second baffle (345B), and the two side plates (310) define a card insertion area (device bay 330B); and an electronic component (Figure 4C, electronic modules 225), used to be accommodated in the card insertion area (330B; see Figures 3A-4C) and supported or clamped by the elastic members (40 in Brusati).
Regarding claim 18, Olesiewicz in view of Brusati and Keffeler teaches the electronic device according to claim 16, and further teaches (in Brusati) wherein the side plate (50, corresponding to 310 in Olesiewicz) comprises an elongated hole (cavities 60, corresponding to 325 in Olesiewicz) and a fixing part (fasteners 66), and the elongated hole (60) is adjacent to the fixing part (66); and the elastic member (40) comprises a docking part (openings 46), the docking part (46) is disposed on the fixing part (66), and the supporting part (42) is deformably disposed in the elongated hole (60).
Because Olesiewicz and Keffeler also teach a plurality of elongate holes adjacent the slide rails, 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 elastic members of Bursati within the elongate holes of Olesiewicz as modified by Bursati and Keffeler, as taught in Bursati, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of arranged elastic members through a sidewall to contact an electronic component for the purpose of grounding (see col. 2-3 in Brusati), and considering, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Claims 8, 10, 12, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olesiewicz (US Publication No. 2023/0116549) in view of Brusati (US Patent No. 5467254).
Regarding claim 8 (as best understood), Olesiewicz discloses an expansion assembly, comprising: a first baffle (channel 345A); a second baffle (channel 345B), opposite to the first baffle (345A); and a baffle assembly (see Figures 3A), comprising two side plates (divider walls 310) opposite to each other (see Figures 3A), wherein the two side plates (first and second 310) are connected to the first baffle (345A) and the second baffle (345B), wherein each of the two side plates (first and second 310) include an elongate hole (openings 325).
Olesiewicz does not disclose two elastic members opposite to each other, wherein each of the two elastic members comprises a docking plate, the docking plate is disposed on one side surface of one of the two side plates, each of the elastic members comprises a plurality of supporting parts, and one of the supporting parts projects from the docking plate towards the other one of the two side plates, wherein each of the two elastic members comprises a second slide rail, the second slide rail projects from the docking plate towards the other one of the two side plates, and the second slide rail is adjacent to the supporting parts, and wherein, for each of the two elastic members, the supporting parts are disposed on opposite sides of the second slide rail.
However, Brusati teaches two side plates (top and bottom plates of chassis 84) and two elastic members (comprised of coupling strip 40 and track 50) opposite to each other (see Figure 6), wherein each of the two elastic members (40, 50) comprises a docking plate (flat section 41), the docking plate (41) is disposed on one side surface of one of the two side plates (inner surface of first 84, corresponding to inner surface of 310 in Olesiewicz), each of the elastic members (40, 50) comprises a plurality of supporting parts (42), and one of the supporting part (42) projects from the docking plate (41) towards the other one of the two side plates (walls of 84), wherein each of the two elastic members (40, 50) comprises a first slide rail (lateral portion 56 of 50) and a second slide rail (lateral portion 58 of 50), the second slide rail (58) projects from the docking plate (41) towards the other one of the two side plates (walls of 84), and the second slide rail (58) is adjacent to the supporting parts (42), and wherein, for each of the two elastic members (40, 50), the supporting parts (42) are disposed on opposite sides of the second slide rail (56; see Figure 4-7, where first 42 is arranged on the front end of 50 and the second 42 is arranged on the rear end of 50), .
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 plurality of elastic members of Brusati to the of sidewalls of Olesiewicz, such that the elastic members (including the first slide rail) were adjacent to the elongate holes of Olesiewicz and engaged with each of the electronic modules in Olesiewicz (see Figure 4 in Olesiewicz). Doing so would have provided a grounding function to the electronic assembly to provide a tolerance against static electricity and EMI and would have guided the electronic modules within each slot (see col. 2-3 in Brusati).
Regarding claim 10, Olesiewicz in view of Brusati teaches the expansion assembly according to claim 8, and further teaches (in Brusati) wherein one end of each of the supporting parts (base portion 78 of 42) is connected to the docking plate (41), and the other end of each of the supporting parts (tip 82 of 42) is a free end (see Figure 3), which forms a cantilever (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 12, Olesiewicz in view of Brusati teaches the expansion assembly according to claim 8, and further teaches (in Brusati) wherein one of the supporting parts (first 42) projects from the docking plate (41) towards the other one of the two side plates (310 in Olesiewicz), and another one of the supporting parts (second 42) adjacent to the one of the supporting parts (first 42) projects from the docking plate (41) in a direction away from the other one of the two side plates (Figure 4 in Brusati, tip 82 of second 42 projecting opposite from 310 in Olesiewicz; Figure 6 in Brusati, second 42 also projecting backwards (to the right in Figures 4-5), which is “away” from opposite 310 in Olesiewicz).
Regarding claim 15, Olesiewicz in view of Brusati teaches the expansion assembly according to claim 12, and further teaches (in Brusati) wherein one end of each of the supporting part (base portion 78 of 42) is connected to the docking plate (41), and the other end of each of the supporting part (tip 82 of 42) is a free end, which forms a cantilever (see Figures 3-4).
Regarding claim 19, Olesiewicz in view of Brusati teaches an electronic device, comprising (in Olesiewicz): the expansion assembly (electronic system 210) according to claim 8, wherein the first baffle (345A), the second baffle (345B), and the two side plates (310) define a card insertion area (device bay 330B); and an electronic component (Figure 4C, electronic modules 225), used to be accommodated in the card insertion area (330B; see Figures 3A-4C) and supported or clamped by the elastic members (40, 50 in Brusati).
Regarding claim 20, Olesiewicz in view of Brusati teaches the electronic device according to claim 19, and further teaches (in Brusati) wherein one of the supporting parts (first 42) projects from the docking plate (41) towards the other one of the two side plates (310 in Olesiewicz), and another supporting part (second 42) adjacent to the supporting part (first 42) projects from the docking plate (41) in a direction away from the other one of the two side plates (Figure 4 in Brusati, tip 82 of second 42 projecting opposite from 310 in Olesiewicz; Figure 6 in Brusati, second 42 also projecting backwards (to the right in Figures 4-5), which is “away” from opposite 310 in Olesiewicz).
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olesiewicz (US Publication No. 2023/0116549), Brusati (US Publication No. 5467254), and in further view of Mann (US Patent No. 5523527).
Regarding claim 9, Olesiewicz in view of Brusati teaches the expansion assembly according to claim 8, but does not teach wherein two ends of each of the supporting part are connected to the docking plate to form an elastic arm.
However, Mann teaches an elastic member (EMI contact device 10) comprising a supporting part (members 16) and a docking plate (base member 12), wherein two ends of each of the supporting part (ends of 16) are connected to the docking plate (12) to form an elastic arm (see Figures 3-6).
Because Brusati and Mann both teach elastic arms for the purposes of grounding an electronic device, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the support members in Brusati for the support members in Mann according to known methods to yield the predictable results of providing an elastic, grounding contact on a base plate to contact an electronic device upon installation (see Figure 3 in Brusati; see Figure 3 in Mann).
It would have also 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 shape of the support member in Brusati to have the shape of the support member in Mann, considering a change in shape has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed feature is significant. See MPEP § 2144.04 and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Doing so would have also provided a more reliable support member that would not become damaged or deformed over time (see col. 1-2 in Mann).
Regarding claim 14, Olesiewicz in view of Brusati teaches the expansion assembly according to claim 12, but does not teach wherein two ends of each of the supporting part are connected to the docking plate to form an elastic arm.
However, Mann teaches an elastic member (EMI contact device 10) comprising a supporting part (members 16) and a docking plate (base member 12), wherein two ends of each of the supporting part (ends of 16) are connected to the docking plate (12) to form an elastic arm (see Figures 3-6).
Because Brusati and Mann both teach elastic arms for the purposes of grounding an electronic device, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the support members in Brusati for the support members in Mann according to known methods to yield the predictable results of providing an elastic, grounding contact on a base plate to contact an electronic device upon installation (see Figure 3 in Brusati; see Figure 3 in Mann).
It would have also 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 shape of the support member in Brusati to have the shape of the support member in Mann, considering a change in shape has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed feature is significant. See MPEP § 2144.04 and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Doing so would have also provided a more reliable support member that would not become damaged or deformed over time (see col. 1-2 in Mann).
Alternatively, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olesiewicz (US Publication No. 2023/0116549) in view of Cheng (US Publication No. 2016/0150668) and Keffeler (US Publication No. 2013/0176676).
Regarding claim 1, Olesiewicz discloses an expansion assembly, comprising: a first baffle (channel 345A); a second baffle (channel 345B), opposite to the first baffle (345A); and a baffle assembly (see Figures 3A), comprising two side plates (divider walls 310) opposite to each other (see Figures 3A), wherein the two side plates (first and second 310) are connected to the first baffle (345A) and the second baffle (345B).
Olesiewicz does not disclose a plurality of elastic members disposed on each of the two side plates respectively, each of the elastic member comprises a supporting part, and each of the supporting parts projects from one of the two side plates towards the other one of the two side plates.
However, Cheng teaches two side plates (side plates 120) and a plurality of elastic members (buffering components 400) disposed on each of the two side plates (120; see Paragraph [0018]) respectively, each of the elastic member (400) comprises a supporting part (protrusion parts 422), and each of the supporting parts (422) projects from one of the two side plates (first 120) towards the other one of the two side plates (second 120).
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 elastic member in Cheng to the sidewalls in Olesiewicz, such that a pair of elastic members were engaged with each of the electronic modules in Olesiewicz (see Figure 4 in Olesiewicz; see Figures 1-2 in Cheng). Doing so would have provided the electronic assembly with cushioning members that would prevent the electronic modules from vibrating or becoming damaged from shock (see Paragraphs [0006] and [0021]-[0023] in Cheng).
While Olesiewicz suggests wherein each of the two side plates (310) comprises a first slide rail (rails defining openings 325), the first slide rail (rails defining 325) projects from one side surface of one of the two side plates (outer side of first 310) towards the other one of the two side plates (second 310; see annotated Figure 3A above), wherein each of the two side plates (310) comprises an elongate hole (divider openings 325), the first slide rail (rails defining 325) is adjacent to the elongate hole (325), Olesiewicz in view of Cheng does not explicitly teach wherein each of the two side plates comprises a first slide rail, and the first slide rail projects from one side surface of one of the two side plates towards that other one of the two side plates, and wherein for each of the two side plates, the elastic members are disposed on opposite sides of the first slide rail, wherein each of the two side plates comprises an elongate hole, the first slide rail is adjacent to the elongate hole.
However, Keffeler teaches two side plates (Figures 3-5, chassis support members 304, comprised of support members 404, 504) and elastic members (springs 404), wherein each of the two side plates (404, 504) comprises a first slide rail (rail surfaces 312; Paragraph [0052], “Rail surfaces 312 are provided on both the first chassis support member 408 and the second chassis support member 504 to support storage device modules 208 on each side of a chassis support member 304”), and the first slide rail (312) projects from one side surface of one of the two side plates (inner surface of first 304 defining storage bay) towards that other one of the two side plates (inner surface of opposite 304 defining storage bay), and wherein for each of the two side plates (members 304 defining storage bay), the elastic members (404) are disposed on opposite sides of the first slide rail (312; see Figures 3-5), wherein each of the two side plates (members 304 defining bay) comprises an elongate hole (holes adjacent 312; see Figures 3-5), the first slide rail (312) is adjacent to the elongate hole (holes adjacent 312).
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 slide rails and elongate openings of Keffeler to the side plates between the elastic members of Olesiewicz as modified by Cheng, as taught in Keffeler. Doing so would have provided/guided the storage modules within the storage bays during the installation process (see Paragraphs [0044], [0052]-[0053] in Keffeler).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13 claims the expansion assembly according to claim 12, wherein the one of the supporting parts is deformably disposed in the elongated hole of the one of the two side plates and the other one of the supporting parts is deformably disposed in the elongate hole of the other one of the two side plates.
The amendments to claim 8, upon which claims 12 and 13 are dependent, require that track 50 and coupling strip 40 in Brusati to be interpreted as the elastic members that are combined to side plates 310 in Olesiewicz. However, if sidewalls 84 in Brusati correspond to side plates 310 in Olesiewicz, then there is no elongate hole through which the elastic members extend (see Figures 5-7 in Brusati). Instead, as taught in Brusati, the elastic members are simply connected to the inner surfaces of the side plates. While sidewalls 310 in Olesiewicz appear to include elongate holes (see openings 325 in Figure 3A), it is unclear how or why a PHOSITA would modify side plates 310 or its openings 325 to accommodate the supporting part of the elastic members from Brusati.
While Liu (US Patent No. 6304457) teaches two side plates (Figures 4-5, board bodies 112, corresponding to 310 in Olesiewicz) and a plurality of elastic members (grounding clips 114) comprising a supporting part (first section 120 of 114), wherein each of the two side plates (112) comprises an elongated hole (elongate slot 116), and the supporting part (120) of one of the plurality of elastic members (114) is deformably disposed in the elongated hole (116) of one of the two side plates (112), the elastic members of Liu do not meet the limitations set forth in claim 8 (considering grounding clips 114 do not include a slide rail), and it is unclear how or why a PHOSITA would modify the mounting configuration taught in Brusati for the mounting configuration taught in Liu.
Chen (US Publication No. 2004/0125555) also teaches sidewalls (22) with elongate openings (24), where support parts (42) of an elastic member (40) extend through the elongate openings. However, because claim 13 is dependent on claim 12, Chen does not teach wherein one of the supporting parts of the elastic member extend towards the other one of the two side plates and another supporting part adjacent to the supporting part projects from the docking plate in a direction away from the other one of the two side plates.
Yang (US Publication No. 2017/0228000) teaches an elastic member (50) with supporting parts (51) between which an electronic device is accommodated (see Figure 10). However, the elastic member in Yang is significantly different from the elastic members in the other prior art and does not protrude through an elongate hole in a sidewall.
For these reasons, claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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