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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first side of the housing”, “one or more fans”, “PCI card”, “second side of the housing”, “sub-compartments”, “printed circuit board”, “mother board”, and “computer card” must be shown and reference numbers provided therefor on thew drawings and in the specification, or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, requires the specification to be written in "full, clear, concise, and exact terms." Superfluous repetition of the claims or claim-like clauses appended to the description in pars. [0012]-[0031] contain multiple dependencies with nested, back-referenced clauses that are hard to track and produce confusion instead of clarity. The claim-like clauses suggest multiple dependencies and alternate passages, thereby obscuring rather than clarifying the disclosure.
The Applicant must amend the specification accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1 and 16 recites the limitations “a retainer for holding a PCI (a computer) card”. The specification does not explain how the aforementioned functionality is accomplished.
Furthermore, claims 2 and 17 recite the limitations “the lever is operably connected to a release button, the release button for releasing the lever from a first position to a second position”. Likewise, the specification does not explain how the aforementioned functionality is accomplished.
Furthermore, claim 17 recites the limitations “wherein the lever and release button permit a release of the housing from the desktop workstation by hand without a use of a tool”. Likewise, the specification does not explain how the aforementioned functionality is accomplished.
Furthermore, claims 15 and 20 recite the limitations “the lever is operable for insertion of the peripheral component interconnect into the printed circuit board and for removal of the removal of the peripheral component interconnect from the printed circuit board”. Likewise, the specification does not explain how the aforementioned functionality is accomplished.
Accordingly, all of the aforementioned claimed functionality is not enabled. After considering all of the Wands factors, and specifically, that there is no adequate direction provided by the inventor/applicant, the Office has concluded that the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the instant disclosure will be high and undue to a person of the ordinary skill, and therefore, such a person will not be able to make and use the claimed invention without resorting to undue experimentation. See In re Brown, 477 F.2d 946, 177 USPQ 691 (CCPA 1973); In re Ghiron, 442 F.2d 985, 169 USPQ 723 (CCPA 1971).
All remaining dependent claims have been also rejected since they inherit the aforementioned problems of the parent claims.
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 1-20, 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.
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 14, claim 13 recites the limitations “the second side of the housing comprises an underside of the housing”. Furter, claim 14 recites the limitations “a second lever attached to a second side of the housing, the second side of the housing opposite the first side of the housing”. Furter, claim 1 recites the limitations: “a lever attached to a first side of the housing” and “one or more electrical couplings on a second side of the housing”. However, the aforementioned limitations produce ambiguity and contradictions, since according to the disclosure, the levers (120) are attached to the lateral sides of the housing (110) as clearly depicted on Fig. 1. Therefore, it’s not clear how the lateral side(s) of the housing can be opposite to the underside (i.e., to the bottom side) thereof where the electrical couplings (150) are disposed (Fig. 1) ? It appears the claims conflate the lateral side(s) of the housing and the underside of the housing.
Furthermore, regarding claims 10 and 19, the claims recite the limitations “the one or more electrical couplings comprise a floating tolerance”. The clause is awkward and technically imprecise, thus rendering the claims indefinite. “Tolerance” is not a physical component. Structural components such as “electrical coupling(s)” cannot comprise a tolerance. They can comprise elements, features, structures - but tolerance is a dimensional condition or allowance. The limitation “floating tolerance” is vague and indefinite. Furter, “comprises” implies structural inclusion. A tolerance is a specification or allowance variation – not structural part of the electrical couplings.
Furthermore, claims 1, 7, 8, 16, and 18 recite the limitations “compartment comprising (the) one or more fans”. However, these limitations produce ambiguity and indefiniteness, since “comprising” implies that the fans are structurally part of the housing itself – not merely installed in or coupled to it. The compartment supports (accommodates, houses, etc.) the fans. It does not “comprise” them. The same goes for the limitations “comprises one or more sub-compartments” in claims 7 and 18.
Furthermore, claims 15 and 20 recite an ungrammatical and unclear clause “removal of the removal” [sic], which renders the claims indefinite.
All remaining dependent claims have been also rejected since they inherit the aforementioned problems of the parent claims.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10-16, 19, and 20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9, 996, 124 to Ent et al. (hereafter “Ent”).
Regarding claims 1, 10-13, 16, and 19, as best understood, Ent discloses a peripheral component interconnect (PCI) (col. 2, ll. 49-54; Figs. 1-3, 5, and 6) for a desktop workstation (100) comprising: a housing (350); a lever (695-1) attached to a first side of the housing; a compartment (within (350)) comprising one or more fans (357); a retainer (355) for holding a PCI (col. 2, ll. 49-54) card (650); and one or more electrical couplings (652) (col. 2, ll. 43-48) on a second underside side of the housing, the one or more electrical couplings comprise floating tolerance (inherently, some tolerance is present) and configured for direct coupling to a printed circuit mother board (PCB) (320) on the workstation (100) without a use of cables (col. 2, ll. 35-67).
Regarding claims 5, as best understood, Ent discloses that the electrical couplings comprise control signal couplings and power couplings (col. 2, ll. 35-67).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Ent discloses a baffle (the housing (350) forms the baffle, also see vents on front plate) for receiving air flows from the one or more fans (357).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Ent discloses a second lever (695-2) attached to a second side of the housing, the second side of the housing opposite the first side of the housing (Figs. 5, 6, 9, 10).
Regarding claims 15 and 20, as best understood, Ent discloses that the lever (695-1) is operable for insertion of the peripheral component interconnect (350) into the printed circuit board (320) and for removal of the removal [sic] of the peripheral component interconnect from the printed circuit board (see “locked” and “unlocked” states in col. 7-8).
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 7-9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ent.
Regarding claims 7, 8, and 18, Ent discloses that the compartment (within (350)) comprising the one or more fans (357) is removable as a single unit (Figs. 3, 5), but does not disclose that the compartment comprises one or more sub-compartments removable as single unit.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided as many sub-compartments as needed within the compartment of Ent, in order to optimize cooling efficiency (i.e., the air flow path, etc.), since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Also, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
The additional prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, because of the teachings of various cooling arrangements for PCI components. Furter, the US 2021/0410335, US 8243437, US 2007/0133178, US 20030201902, and US 2003/0016496 teach electronic arrangements utilizing PCI riser components and boards.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 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, Jayprakash N. 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2835