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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Ln.3: the clause “the at least one movable frame are movably” should be amended to recite “the at least one movable frame is movably” for grammatical reasons.
Claim 3 Lns.1-2: the Office recommends amending the clauses “wherein the cage assembly comprises two movable frames” and “the electronic device comprises two motherboards” such that they respectively recite “wherein the at least one movable frame comprises two movable frames” and “the at least one motherboard comprises two motherboards” for clarity purposes (i.e., make it clear that the “two movable frames” and “two motherboards” of claim 3 are with respect to the “at least one movable frame” and “at least one motherboard” of claim 1).
Claim 3 Lns.4-5: the clause “the plurality of expansion cards respectively” should be amended to recite “the plurality of expansion cards are respectively” for grammatical reasons.
Claim 11 Ln.6: the clause “the at least one movable frame are movably” should be amended to recite “the at least one movable frame is movably” for grammatical reasons.
The Office notes that the above objections are a non-exhaustive list, and thus requests Applicant’s cooperation with reviewing the claims and correcting all remaining informalities present in the claims, but not made of record above. 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 6-7 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.
The term “relatively far away” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively far away” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As recited in claim 6, it is not clear at what point the “second contact portion is located relatively far away from the first contact portion” and at what point the “second contact portion” is not located relatively far away from the ”first contact portion”. In other words, the scope is indefinite because it cannot be readily understood what the intended claim scope for “relatively far away” is because the measurement is a relative and subjective term, and thus making it unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim scope is. For all of the reasons outlined above, claim 6 is considered to be indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claim was considered to be properly rejected so long as the “second contact portion” is separated from the “first contact portion”.
Claim 7 is under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for inheriting the deficiency of claim 6.
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 1-2 and 4-6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (US 20150098195) (of record, cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses (Figs.1-5):
An electronic device (See Fig.1), comprising: a cage assembly (100, 200, and 330), comprising a fixed frame (330) and at least one movable frame (100 and/or 200), wherein the at least one movable frame (100 and/or 200) are movably disposed (See Figs.4-5) on the fixed frame (330); at least one motherboard (110 and/or 210), mounted on the at least one movable frame (100 and/or 200); and a plurality of expansion cards (30), mounted on the at least one motherboard (110 and/or 210).
Regarding claim 2, Lin further discloses:
Wherein one side (See Figure Below) of the at least one movable frame (100 and/or 200) is pivotally disposed (See Figs.2 and 4-5) on the fixed frame (330), enabling another side (See Figure Below) of the at least one movable frame (100 and/or 200) to move closer to the fixed frame (330) for the at least one movable frame (100 and/or 200) to be in a closed position (See Fig.1), or move farther away from the fixed frame (330) for the at least one movable frame (100 and/or 200) to be in an open position (See Fig.5).
See next page→
PNG
media_image1.png
1056
915
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Lin further discloses:
A plurality of fasteners (310, 320, and/or 331), wherein each of the plurality of fasteners comprises a first engagement portion (331) and a second engagement portion (310 and/or 320), the plurality of first engagement portions (331) are disposed on the fixed frame (330) (Fig.3A: the two 331’s are provided on 330), the plurality of second engagement portions (310 and 320) are disposed on the at least one movable frame (100 and/or 200) (Fig.2 and [0023]: the two 310’s are provided/disposed on 100 and the two 320’s are provided/disposed on 200), and the plurality of second engagement portions (310 and/or 320) are engaged (See Figs.2-3A) with the plurality of first engagement portions (331) to secure (See Figs.2-3A) the at least one movable frame (100 and/or 200) to the fixed frame (330).
Regarding claim 5, Lin further discloses:
At least one contact electrode (22), wherein the at least one motherboard (110 and/or 210) comprises at least one conductive sheet (120 and/or 220), the at least one contact electrode (22) has a first contact portion (Fig.1: the portion of 22 in contact with 120), and the first contact portion is electrically connected (See Fig.1) to the at least one conductive sheet (120 and/or 220).
Regarding claim 6, Lin further discloses:
A conductive seat (20 and the conductive region that electrically couples 20 to 22), wherein the at least one contact electrode (22) has a second contact portion (Fig.1: the portion of 22 in contact with 210), the conductive seat comprises a base (20) and at least one conductive member (Fig.1 the conductive region that electrically couples 20 to 22), the cage assembly (100, 200, and 330) is detachably disposed on the base (20) (Fig.1: cage assembly is detachably disposed on the base via 22 being coupled to uncoupled to 110 and/or 210), the at least one conductive member (Fig.1 the conductive region that electrically couples 20 to 22) is disposed on the base (20) (Fig.1: the conductive region that defines the “at least one conductive member” has to be disposed on 20 in order to couple 20 and 22 together), the second contact portion (Fig.1: the portion of 22 in contact with 210) is located relatively far away from the first contact portion (Fig.1: the portion of 22 in contact with 120) (Fig.1: the “second contact portion” is separated from the “first contact portion”, and thus located “relatively far away” as outlined in the 112(b) rejection above), and the second contact portion (Fig.1: the portion of 22 in contact with 210) is electrically connected to the at least one conductive member (Fig.1 the conductive region that electrically couples 20 to 22) (Fig.1: the “at least one conductive member” and the “second contact portion” have to be electrically coupled so that 210 can receive power and operate).
Alternatively, claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by French, Jr. (US 8976536) (referred to as French).
Regarding claim 1, French discloses (Figs.1-7A):
An electronic device, comprising: a cage assembly (See Fig.1), comprising a fixed frame (40) and at least one movable frame (20), wherein the at least one movable frame (20) are movably disposed (See Fig.1: 20 rotates relative to 40) on the fixed frame (40); at least one motherboard (24), mounted on the at least one movable frame (20); and a plurality of expansion cards (28), mounted on the at least one motherboard (24).
Regarding claim 9, French further discloses:
A handle (72), wherein the handle (72) is disposed on the fixed frame (40) (Figs.1 and 6-7A: 72 is indirectly disposed on 40 via 20, and 72 is disposed on 40 in the closed position via 81).
See next page→
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20150098195) (of record, cited in the IDS) in view of Lin (US 20140126136) (referred to as Lin'136).
Regarding claim 3, Lin further discloses:
Wherein the cage assembly (100, 200, and 330) comprises two movable frames (100 and 200), the electronic device (See Fig.1) comprises two motherboards (110 and 210), the two movable frames (100 and 200) provided with the two motherboards (110 and 210) are disposed on two opposite sides of the fixed frame (330) (Fig.1: 110 and 210 are provided on opposite sides of 330), when the two movable frames (100 and 200) are in the closed position (See Fig.1).
However, Lin does not disclose:
When the two movable frames are in the closed position, the plurality of expansion cards respectively disposed on the two motherboards are arranged alternately.
Lin’136 however teaches (Figs.2A-4):
The plurality of expansion cards (20) respectively disposed on the two boards (14 and 16) are arranged alternately (See Figs.3-4, [0018], [0013], and [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Lin'136 to modify the device of Lin such that in the closed position of the two movable frames, the plurality of expansion cards are respectively disposed on the two motherboards in an alternative fashion, as claimed, in order to more effectively utilize the space of the boards as taught by Lin'136 ([0039]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20150098195) (of record, cited in the IDS) in view of Chen (US 20090294599).
Regarding claim 8, Lin does not disclose:
At least one cable organizer, wherein the at least one cable organizer is disposed on the at least one movable frame.
Chen however teaches (Fig.6):
At least one cable organizer (24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Chen to modify Lin such that it has at least one cable organizer that is disposed on the at least one movable frame, as claimed, in order to provide a simple and efficient means of routing and holding cables in an organized manner due to the at least one cable organizer.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20150098195) (of record, cited in the IDS) in view of Coteus (US 20210384661).
Regarding claim 10, Lin does not disclose:
Wherein the plurality of expansion cards are graphics cards.
Coteus however teaches:
Memory modules and graphics cards being known in the art to plug into connectors ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Coteus to modify Lin such that it further incorporates a plurality of graphics cards so that the plurality of expansion cards are graphics cards, as claimed, in order to further optimize the computing capabilities of the at least one motherboard, as claimed, due to the graphics cards further advancing the overall capabilities (i.e., by incorporating the graphics cards, the device will now be able to render and output images and graphics, and thus increasing the overall computing functionality and capabilities).
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20230232582) in view of Lin (US 20150098195) (both references of record, cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses (Figs.1-5):
An immersion cooling system, comprising: an immersion tank (200), configured to accommodate a coolant (See Title and [0025]: “immersed in a fluid immersion cooling tank (e.g., see FIG. 5, cooling tank 200)”- means that 200 has to have a coolant that 100 is immersed in); and at least one electronic device (100), disposed in the immersion tank (200), wherein the at least one electronic device (100) comprises: a cage assembly (See Fig.2), comprising a fixed frame (116); at least one motherboard (112); and a plurality of expansion cards (113), mounted on the at least one motherboard (112).
However, Liu does not disclose:
A cage assembly, comprising a fixed frame and at least one movable frame, wherein the at least one movable frame are movably disposed on the fixed frame; at least one motherboard, mounted on the at least one movable frame.
Lin however teaches (Figs.1-5):
A cage assembly (100, 200, and 330), comprising a fixed frame (330) and at least one movable frame (100 and/or 200), wherein the at least one movable frame (100 and/or 200) are movably disposed (See Figs.4-5) on the fixed frame (330); at least one motherboard (110 and/or 210), mounted on the at least one movable frame (100 and/or 200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Lin to modify the device of Liu such that the cage assembly has a fixed frame and at least one movable frame that is movably disposed on the fixed frame, and such that the at least one motherboard is mounted on the at least one movable frame, as claimed, in order to better protect the at least one motherboard from external damages due to the at least one movable frame providing additional protection. Furthermore, incorporating the movable frame will also allow a user easier access to the components of at least one motherboard without having to completely disassemble the at least one electronic device.
See next page→
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is believed to be in condition for allowance, and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, subject to the obviation of the objections and 112(b) rejection outlined above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device as recited in the combined subject matter of claims 1 and 5-7, and at least in part, because claim 7 recites the limitations: “the base has at least one through hole, the at least one conductive protrusion is connected to the conductive strip, the at least one conductive protrusion is disposed through the at least one through hole, and the second contact portion is electrically connected to the at least one conductive protrusion”.
The aforementioned limitations, in combination with all remaining limitations of respective claim 7, are believed to render the combined subject matter of claims 1 and 5-7, and all claims depending therefrom allowable over the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, subject to the obviation of the objections and 112(b) rejection outlined above.
In the European Search Opinion filed in the European Patent Office (EPO) on 12/19/2024, the search opinion also states that claim 11 (which is equivalent to claim 7 of the instant application) is believed to be in condition for allowance. Therefore, claim 7 is also believed to be in condition for allowance for the same reason as outlined in the European Search Opinion.
See next page→
The remaining prior art references teach other electronic devices with at least one movable frame and/or immersion cooling systems for an electronic device. However, none of the remaining prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to teach and/or suggest the aforementioned allowable limitations of claim 7. Furthermore, even if there is a prior art reference or prior art references that teaches/teach and/or suggests/suggest the aforementioned allowable limitations of claim 7, in isolation, the Office notes that the combination would be improper since the combination would require undo experimentation in order to arrive at the claimed device as claimed in claim 7. Therefore, none of the prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to render the claimed invention unpatentable as claimed, subject to the obviation of the objections and 112(b) rejection outlined above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 11974414: teaches a dual circuit board in which expansion cards are staggered from each other.
US 20240015928: teaches an immersion cooling system that has a cage assembly, motherboard, and a graphics card that is mounted to the motherboard. The cage assembly also having a handle.
US 20230301022: teaches conductive traces on a printed circuit board that connects the PCB to a connector.
US 20200295514: teaches DIMM’s and graphics cards being known expansion cards that insert into a connector or a PCB.
US 20190303333: teaches conductive traces on a printed circuit board that connects the PCB to a connector.
US 10123446: teaches an electronic device with a cage assembly with two fixed frames, and each frame holding a motherboard and a plurality of expansion cards.
US 9110640: teaches a cage assembly with two motherboard and a plurality of expansion cards.
US 20130050955: teaches a backplane PCB with traces that are utilized to electrically couple to connectors.
US 8289692: teaches an electronic device with at least two fixed frames and a plurality of motherboards that each hold a plurality of expansion cards.
US 20090086422: teaches an electronic device with a fixed frame and a movable frame, and the movable frame being pivotable with respect to the fixed frame.
US 5012391: teaches a cable management holding system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at (571) 272-3740. 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.
/STEPHEN S SUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835