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 .
This communication is in response to the claim’s amendment dated 3/2/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 3/2/2026 regarding claims 1, 7 and 13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s argument mainly relies on the added language “…inside of a side wall of a power supply bay housing of the power supply bay”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant, since the newly added language does not seem to further structurally distinguish from the teaching of Strickland et al. See below annotated figure 1 and rejection of claim 1.
The previous drawing/claim objection and the 112th rejection of claim 13 are hereby withdrawn.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In par[0046]-[0049], there is no corresponding numeral label for “the first power supply bay spacer”. Numerals 712 and 714 are both designated to be “alignment component”. Perhaps 714 should be “the first power supply bay spacer”?
Disclosure does not mention reference numeral “1230” shown in figure 12B.
There are numerous elements mentioned in the specification without corresponding reference numerals.
Appropriate correction is required.
Note: the claimed “a power supply bay system configuration component” in claim 1 is formed by “a power supply bay spacer” and “alignment component” recited in claim 2, which refers to as one single component.
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, 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strickland et al. U.S. Pub. 2022/0350935 (hereinafter D1).
PNG
media_image1.png
578
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, D1 teaches an apparatus for configurating a power supply bay (111a-k; figure 1; see par[0040]), the apparatus comprising:
a power supply bay system configuration component (110-1 to 110-8; figure 1), the power supply bay configuration component being configured to be mounted to inside of a side wall (see above annotated figure 1) of a power supply bay housing (see above annotated figure 1) of the power supply bay (111a-k; figure 1; (see par[0040], “PSUs …..of different form factors”), the power supply configuration component (110-1 to 110-8; figure 1) configuring the power supply bay to mount a plurality of types of power supply units (see par[0040], “PSUs …..of different form factors”) within the power supply bay, each of the plurality of types of power supply units having respective external characteristics (different form factors => different sizes as external characteristics).
Regarding claim 7, D1 teaches a configurable power supply bay system comprising:
a power supply bay (111a-k; figure 1; see par[0040]); and,
a power supply bay system configuration component (110-1 to 110-8; figure 1), the power supply bay configuration component being configured to be mounted to inside of a sidewall (see above annotated figure 1) of a power supply bay housing (see above annotated figure 1) of the power supply bay, the power supply configuration component configuring the power supply bay to mount a plurality of types of power supply units (see par[0040], “PSUs …..of different form factors”) within the power supply bay, each of the plurality of types of power supply units having respective external characteristics (different form factors => different sizes as external characteristics).
Regarding claim 13, D1 teaches a system comprising:
a processor (see par[0018]; “CPU”);
a data bus (implicitly taught) coupled to the processor;
a power supply (see par[0040], “PSUs”); and,
a configurable power supply bay system, the configurable power supply bay system (100; figure 1) comprising:
a power supply bay (111a-k; figure 1; see par[0040]); and,
a power supply bay system configuration component (110-1 to 110-8; figure 1), the power supply bay configuration component being configured to be mounted to an inside of a side wall (see above annotated figure 1) of a power supply bay housing (see above annotated figure 1) of the power supply bay (see figure 1), the power supply configuration component configuring the power supply bay to mount a plurality of types of power supply units (see par[0040], “PSUs …..of different form factors”) within the power supply bay, each of the plurality of types of power supply units having respective external characteristics (different form factors => different sizes as external characteristics).
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 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of Norton et al. U.S. Patent 11,556,156 (hereinafter D2).
Note: the claimed “a power supply bay system configuration component” in claim 1 is formed by “a power supply bay spacer” and “alignment component” recited in claim 2, which refers to as one single component.
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned above, D1 teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
However, D1 does not teach the power supply bay system configuration component is configured as a power supply bay spacer and alignment component, the power supply bay spacer and alignment component being configured to be mounted to the inside of the side wall of a power supply bay hosing of the power supply bay.
D2, teaches a similar bay system (200; figure 3B), wherein the configuration component (300; figure 3B) comprises a bay spacer and alignment component (left 300; figure 3B), the bay spacer and alignment component (left 300) being configured to be mounted to a side wall (left 204; figure 3B) of the bay (200; figure 3B).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further equip the power supply bay system of D1, such that the configuration component of D1 would be equipped with a power supply bay spacer and alignment component, as suggested by D2, such that the bay spacer and alignment component would be configured to be mounted to a side wall of the bay, for accommodating a power supply unit having a form-factor of choice.
Regarding claim 8, D1/D2 teaches the drive mounting system of claim 8 for the same reasons stated in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, D1/D2 teaches the drive mounting system of claim 14 for the same reasons stated in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned above, D1/D2 teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
D2, teaches a similar bay structure, further suggests another bay spacer and alignment component (left 300; figure 3B), the another power supply bay spacer and alignment component (left 300) being configured to be mounted to another side wall (204; figure 3B) of the bay, the another side wall (left 204) of the bay being positioned opposite (see figure 3B of D2) to the side wall of the bay.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further equip the power supply bay system configuration component of D1/D2 such that it would further comprise another power supply bay spacer and alignment component, as suggested by D2, the another power supply bay spacer and alignment component being configured to be mounted to another side wall (right side of right wall) of the power supply bay, the another side wall of the power supply bay being positioned opposite (see figure 3B of D2) to the side wall of the power supply bay, to accommodate a power supply unit having a form-factor of choice.
Regarding claim 9, D1/D2 teaches the drive mounting system of claim 9 for the same reasons stated in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, D1/D2 teaches the drive mounting system of claim 15 for the same reasons stated in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, the modification of D1/D2 would result in the apparatus of claim 3, wherein: the power supply bay spacer and alignment component has a corresponding power supply bay spacer and alignment component width (see left 300; figure 3B of D2); the another power supply bay spacer and alignment component has a corresponding another power supply bay spacer and alignment component width (see right 300; figure 3B of D2); and
the corresponding power supply bay spacer and alignment component width and the corresponding another power supply bay spacer and alignment component width have different dimensions (see figure 3B of D3; left 300 and right 300 do have different dimensions).
Regarding claim 10, D1/D2 teaches the drive mounting system of claim 10 for the same reasons stated in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, D1/D2 teaches the drive mounting system of claim 16 for the same reasons stated in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, the modification of D1/D2 would result in the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the power supply bay system configuration component comprises a bay guard bracket component (302; figure 3B of D2), the bay guard bracket component preventing (for ex: a bigger size module would not fit into the slot sized by right and left 302) mounting of an incorrect power supply type.
Regarding claim 11, D1/D2 teaches the drive mounting system of claim 11 for the same reasons stated in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, D1/D2 teaches the system of claim 17 for the same reasons stated in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the modification of D1/D2 would result in the apparatus of claim 5, wherein: the bay guard bracket is configured to be attached to a rear (see figure 3B of D2). of the power supply bay.
Regarding claim 12, D1/D2 teaches the drive mounting system of claim 12 for the same reasons stated in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, D1/D2 teaches the system of claim 18 for the same reasons stated in the rejection of claim 6.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6PM..
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
HUNG Q. DANG
Examiner
Art Unit 2835
/IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841