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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 14 November 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN 202311517143.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
In the application file, see the document dated 14 April 2025 with doc code PD.RETR.FAIL. The Office attempted to retrieve the foreign priority application, but failed.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, the recitation “third direction (Y)” should be “second direction (Z)”. In line 5, the recitation “of first” should be “of said first”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, the recitation “adjacent first” should be “adjacent said first”. In line 3, the recitation “one first” should be “one said first”. In line 4, the recitation “a support” should be “one said support”. In line 7, the recitation “adjacent first” should be “adjacent said first”. In line 8, the recitation “one support” should be “one said support”. In line 9, the recitation “a support body (122) of a” should be “the support body (122) of one said”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, the recitation “a same” should be “one said”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, the recitation “a same” should be “one said”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the recitation “a same” should be “one said”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, the recitation “adjacent support” should be “adjacent said support”.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, the recitation “one support” should be “one said support”.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, the recitation “multiple support” should be “multiple said support”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, the recitation “third direction (Y)” should be “second direction (Z)”. In line 5, the recitation “of first” should be “of said first”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, the recitation “adjacent first” should be “adjacent said first”. In line 3, the recitation “one first” should be “one said first”. In line 4, the recitation “a support” should be “one said support”. In line 7, the recitation “adjacent first” should be “adjacent said first”. In line 8, the recitation “one support” should be “one said support”. In line 9, the recitation “a support body (122) of a” should be “the support body (122) of one said”.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, the recitation “adjacent support” should be “adjacent said support”.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, the recitation “one support” should be “one said support”.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, the recitation “multiple support” should be “multiple said support”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claims 3 and 15: As written, the claims encompass adjacent first guide portions (123) having both 1) a same bending direction in the second direction (Z) and 2) opposite bending directions in the second direction (Z). This is due to the recitation “and” in the claim limitation “and/or”.
The specification does not support claiming first guide portions (123) that are bent in two opposite directions at the same time. The recitation “and” in the claimed “and/or” raises the issue of new matter, and necessitates rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
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.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 3 and 15: As written, the claims encompass adjacent first guide portions (123) having both 1) a same bending direction in the second direction (Z) and 2) opposite bending directions in the second direction (Z). This is due to the recitation “and” in the claim limitation “and/or”.
The recitation “and” in the claim limitation “and/or” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear how first guide portions (123) can bend in two opposite directions at the same time. The claimed bending directions are mutually exclusive, so it is indefinite how both can exist at the same time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 7,529,097 B2 (Coglitore).
With respect to claim 1: Coglitore discloses a fixing bracket (support plate 230a, 230d), comprising: a body portion (main body of plate 230a, 230d); and a plurality of support portions (support flanges 250) arranged at the body portion, wherein along a first direction (lateral direction), at least part of one of the plurality of support portions protrudes from the body portion (support flanges 250 protrude laterally from plate 230a, 230d); wherein the plurality of support portions are distributed at intervals along a second direction (vertical direction) perpendicular to the first direction (vertical is perpendicular to lateral), and in the second direction, adjacent support portions of the plurality of support portions are configured to clamp a target unit (computer 210).
Coglitore col. 9, lines 46-63 and Figs. 11A-11B disclose each support flange 250a, 250b is configured to contact the bottom side of an upper computer (e.g., flange 250b contacts the bottom side of computer 210b in Figs. 11A-11B), and to contact the upper side of a lower computer (e.g., flange 250a contacts the top side of computer 210a in Figs. 11A-11B). Ergo, each installed computer 210 is clamped between adjacent upper and lower support flanges 250 of a given support plate 230.
With respect to claim 12: Coglitore discloses an integrated cabinet, comprising: a cabinet body (rack frame 202); a cabinet door (door 206, 208) mounted to the cabinet body; the fixing bracket according to claim 1, wherein the fixing bracket is mounted to the cabinet body (Fig. 2A); and at least one target unit (computer 210) clamped and fixed by the fixing bracket (Figs. 2A-2B, Figs. 11A-11B, and cols. 9-10).
With respect to claim 13: Coglitore discloses wherein one of the plurality of support portions (flanges 250) comprises a guide portion (portion on which computer 210 is guided into the cabinet), and along a mounting direction of one of the at least one target unit (the front-back mounting direction of a computer 210), at least part of the guide portion is located on a side of the fixing bracket close to the cabinet door (Fig. 2A: at least part of flange 250 is on a side of plate 230 close to door 206).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8-11 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,529,097 B2 (Coglitore).
With respect to claims 8 and 17: Coglitore does not disclose “wherein in the second direction (Z), a distance H between parts of two adjacent support portions (12) configured to abut against a same target unit in the second direction (Z) satisfies: 87.5 mm≤H≤90.5 mm” as claimed.
Coglitore cols. 9-10 disclose spacing the support flanges 250 according to the size of the computers 210, and that the sizes of the computers 210 differ. Different support plates 230 having desired spacings of the support flanges 250 are provided to accommodate differently-sized computers 210.
Coglitore further teaches that typical server computers have 1U, 2U, 3U, and 4U height sizes. 1U is approximately 1.7 inches (43.18 mm). A 2U server computer is approximately 3.4 inches (86.36 mm) in height, and a 3U server computer is approximately 5.1 inches (129.54 mm) in height. The computer 210 of Fig. 12 has a height (Hc) of approximately 3.1 inches (78.74 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Coglitore’s support plate 230 to have support flanges 250 spaced between 87.5 mm and 90.5 mm, in order to accommodate computers 210 of those heights.
With respect to claims 9 and 18: Coglitore discloses wherein one support portion of the plurality of support portions extends along a third direction (depth direction) that is perpendicular to the first direction (depth direction is perpendicular to lateral direction) and perpendicular to the second direction (depth direction is perpendicular to vertical/height direction), and along the third direction, only one support portion is provided (only one flange 250a in Fig. 11A).
Coglitore does not disclose “wherein a length L1 of the one support portion (12) in the third direction (Y) satisfies: 410 mm≤L1≤434 mm” as claimed.
Coglitore cols. 9-10 teach that a typical 1U server computer is approximately 24 inches (609.6 mm) deep. The computer 210 of Fig. 12 has a depth of approximately 16.7 inches. Different support plates 230 having desired spacings of the support flanges 250 are provided to accommodate differently-sized computers 210. The flanges 250 have a length in the depth direction that is some amount less than the depth of the computers 210 (Figs. 11A-11B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Coglitore’s support plate 230 to have support flanges 250 with a length in the depth direction of 410 mm to 434 mm (16.14 inches to 17.09 inches), in order to support computers 210 that are deeper than 17.09 inches. For example, a support flange 250 having a length of 410 mm to 434 mm is suitable to support a 1U computer of 24 inches (609.6 mm) depth.
With respect to claims 10 and 19: Coglitore discloses wherein one support portion of the plurality of support portions extends along a third direction (depth direction) that is perpendicular to the first direction (depth direction is perpendicular to lateral direction) and perpendicular to the second direction (depth direction is perpendicular to vertical/height direction), and along the third direction, multiple support portions are provided (Fig. 2A, Fig. 4: two flanges 250 in the depth direction).
Coglitore does not disclose “wherein a length L2 of one of the multiple support portions (12) in the third direction (Y) satisfies: 30 mm≤L2≤54 mm, and a distance L3 between adjacent ones of the multiple support portions (12) in the third direction (Y) satisfies: 131 mm≤L3≤135 mm” as claimed.
Coglitore cols. 9-10 teach that a typical 1U server computer is approximately 24 inches (609.6 mm) deep. The computer 210 of Fig. 12 has a depth of approximately 16.7 inches. Different support plates 230 having desired spacings of the support flanges 250 are provided to accommodate differently-sized computers 210. The flanges 250 have a length in the depth direction that is some amount less than the depth of the computers 210 (Figs. 11A-11B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Coglitore’s support plate 230 to have support flanges 250 with a length in the depth direction of 30 mm to 54 mm (1.18 inches to 2.13 inches), in order to support computers 210 that are deeper than 2.13 inches. For example, a support flange 250 having a length of 30 mm to 54 mm is suitable to support a computer of 16.7 inches (424.18 mm) depth.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Coglitore’s cabinet to have 131 mm to 135 mm between the front and back sets of support flanges 250, in order to accommodate computer components of a given size.
With respect to claims 11 and 20: Coglitore does not disclose “wherein in the first direction (X), one of the support portion (12) protrudes from the body portion (11) by a distance L4 satisfying: 16 mm≤L4≤20 mm” as claimed.
A typical 1U server computer is approximately 17 inches wide, and the computer of Coglitore Fig. 12 is approximately 12.5 inches wide. The flanges 250 protrude from the plates 230 some distance less than the width of the computers (Figs. 11A-11B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify a flange 250 to protrude from plate 230 between 16 mm and 20 mm, in order to predictably support the computers 210.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,529,097 B2 (Coglitore) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of US 2022/0311222 A1 (Linares).
With respect to claims 2 and 14: Coglitore discloses wherein one of the plurality of support portions (flanges 250) comprises a support body (main body of flange 250), wherein the support body extends along a third direction (depth direction), the third direction is perpendicular to the first direction (depth is perpendicular to lateral) and perpendicular to the second direction (depth is perpendicular to height/vertical).
Coglitore does not disclose “a first guide portion (123), and in the third direction (Y), the first guide portion (123) is located on one side of the support body (122), and in the third direction (Y), a plurality of first guide portions (123) are located on a same side of the fixing bracket (1); and wherein the first guide portion (123) extends obliquely, an angle between the first guide portion (123) and the support body (122) is an obtuse angle, and an inclination direction of the first guide portion (123) is located in a plane defined by the second direction (Z) and the third direction (Y)” as claimed.
Linares Fig. 9 shows the front end of rail 72 having an angled guide portion bent downward. Linares Fig. 4 shows the front end of the lower flange of a rail 72 having an angled guide portion bent downward, and the front end of the upper flange of said rail 72 having an angled guide portion bent upward.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Coglitore’s flanges 250 to each have the bent front end portion shown in Linares’ figures, in order to help guide computers 210 onto said flanges 250.
Such a bent front end portion is “a first guide portion (123)” as claimed. Such a modification meets, as claimed, a first guide portion (bent front end), and in the third direction (depth direction), the first guide portion is located on one side of the support body (in the depth direction, the bent front end is in front of the main body of flange 250), and in the third direction, a plurality of first guide portions are located on a same side of the fixing bracket (one bent front end for each flange 250); and wherein the first guide portion extends obliquely (as in Linares’ figures), an angle between the first guide portion and the support body is an obtuse angle (see the annotated image below), and an inclination direction of the first guide portion is located in a plane defined by the second direction (vertical/height direction) and the third direction (depth direction).
PNG
media_image1.png
304
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 3 and 15: Coglitore, as modified, meets wherein adjacent first guide portions have a same bending direction in the second direction (all of the added bent front ends bend in the same direction), one first guide portion is configured to abut against one side of the target unit in the second direction (the added bent end abuts the bottom of the computer 210), and the support body of a support portion adjacent to the one first guide portion (the main body of the flange 250 above the identified bent front end that abuts the bottom of said computer 210) is configured to abut against another side of the target unit in the second direction (abuts the top of said computer 210); and/or wherein adjacent first guide portions (123) have opposite bending directions in the second direction (Z), one support body (122) is configured to abut against one side of the target unit in the second direction (Z), and a support body (122) of a support portion (12) adjacent to the one support body (122) is configured to abut against another side of the target unit in the second direction (Z).
Claim(s) 4, 6-7, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,529,097 B2 (Coglitore) in view of US 2022/0311222 A1 (Linares) as applied to claims 2 and 14 above, and further in view of US 5,738,226 A (Dean).
With respect to claims 4 and 16: Coglitore, as modified, does not meet “wherein one of the plurality of support portions (12) further comprises a second guide portion (124), and in the third direction (Y), the second guide portion (124) is formed on one side of the support body (122) away from the first guide portion (123); and the second guide portion (124) extends obliquely, an angle between the second guide portion (124) and the support body (122) is an obtuse angle, and an inclination direction of the second guide portion (124) is located in the plane defined by the second direction (Z) and the third direction (Y)” as claimed.
Dean teaches a guide piece 10 that has beveled end openings 16 at both ends, to thereby allow for easier insertion of an edge of an electronic circuit card. Having beveled end openings 16 at both ends allows the guide piece to be used on both the left and right sides of a chassis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Coglitore’s flanges 250 to have bent front and rear ends, so that the plates 230 can be interchangeably used on the left or right side of the cabinet.
This meets, as claimed, wherein one of the plurality of support portions (flanges 250) further comprises a second guide portion (the bent rear end portion), and in the third direction (depth direction), the second guide portion is formed on one side of the support body away from the first guide portion (second guide portion is in the rear, away from the first guide portion at the front); and the second guide portion extends obliquely (similarly to the first guide portion), an angle between the second guide portion and the support body is an obtuse angle (in the same way as in the annotated image in the rejection of claims 2 and 14), and an inclination direction of the second guide portion is located in the plane defined by the second direction and the third direction (in the same way as the first guide portion).
With respect to claim 6: Coglitore, as modified, meets wherein the first guide portion and the second guide portion of a same support portion have a same bending direction in the second direction Z (both ends are bent down).
With respect to claim 7: Coglitore, as modified, meets wherein of a same support portion (on a single flange 250), an angle between the first guide portion and the support body is equal to an angle between the second guide portion and the support body (the bent rear end is angled relative to flange 250 the same angle as the bent front end).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW ROERSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-3185. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/ANDREW ROERSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights