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 is the First Office action on the Merits from the examiner in charge of this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the limitation in claim 12, line 2 of “a handle” is not numbered. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: in each of claims 4 and 17, line 2, “perforated sheet metal” should be “a perforated sheet metal”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USP 7438638 to Lewis, II et al (hereinafter Lewis) in view of US 2004/0080244 to Lowther, Jr. et al (hereinafter Lowther) and WO 2008/027304 to Trujillo et al (hereinafter Trujillo).
Lewis discloses an electronic rack 10, comprising: a frame comprising an area for housing chassis that are each adapted to house a respective data processing system; and a rack door 12 that is attached to the frame and adapted to selectively restrict access to the area, the rack door comprises: a front side adapted to: restrict physical access to an area of the electronic rack while the rack door is: positioned with the electronic rack, and in a closed position; a perforated portion; and an edge that is connected to and delineates the perforated portion; wherein the perforated portion comprises: a perforated sheet metal, wherein the edge comprises a reinforcing member that retains a shape of the perforated sheet metal.
The differences being that Lewis fails to clearly disclose the limitations in (i) claim 1 of the rack door 12 comprising: at least one width adjustment system adapted to adjust a width of the rack door; (ii) claims 2-5, 8-11, 15-18; (iii) claims 6-7, 19-20; (iv) claim 14 of at least one width adjustment system adapted to adjust a width of the rack door to conform to a width of the electronic rack.
Lowther discloses an electronic rack comprising: a frame comprising an area for housing chassis that are each adapted to house a respective data processing system; and a rack door 66 that is attached to the frame and adapted to selectively restrict access to the area, the rack door 66 comprises: a front side adapted to: restrict physical access to an area of the electronic rack while the rack door is: positioned with the electronic rack, and in a closed position; the rack door 66 comprising: at least one width adjustment system adapted to adjust a width of the rack door 66 via a slip joint 102 of a door frame 96.
Meanwhile, Trujillo discloses a door comprising: at least one width adjustment system adapted to adjust a width of the door; wherein the door further comprises: a first panel 10; and a second panel 20; wherein the first panel 10 comprises: a perforated portion; and an edge that is connected to and delineates the perforated portion; wherein the perforated portion comprises: a perforated sheet metal, wherein the edge comprises a reinforcing member that retains a shape of the perforated sheet metal; wherein the at least one width adjustment system is adapted to adjust the width of the rack door between a first width and a second width; wherein while the width of the door is adjusted to the second width (such as shown in Figs. 1 & 3), the first edge of the first panel 10 is not aligned with the second edge of the second panel 20; wherein while the width of the door is adjusted to the second width, the perforated portion of the first panel 10 at least partially overlaps with the perforated portion of the second panel 20; wherein the at least one width adjustment system comprises: a structural member of the first panel; a structural member of the second panel; and a securing mechanism 60 to reversibly fixedly attach the structural member of the first panel to the structural member of the second panel; wherein the at least one width adjustment system comprises two width adjustment system, a first of the two width adjustment systems being positioned with a top of the first panel 10 and a top of the second panel 20, and a second of the two width adjustment systems being positioned with a bottom of the first panel 10 and a bottom of the second panel 20.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of Lowther and Trujillo, to modify Lewis to include the limitations in (i) Claim 1 of the rack door 12 comprising: at least one width adjustment system adapted to adjust a width of the rack door; (ii) claims 2-5, 8-11, 15-18: Claim 2 of wherein the rack door further comprises: a first panel; and a second panel; Claim 3 of wherein the first panel comprises: a perforated portion; and an edge that is connected to and delineates the perforated portion; Claim 4 of wherein the perforated portion comprises: a perforated sheet metal, wherein the edge comprises a reinforcing member that retains a shape of the perforated sheet metal; Claim 5 of wherein the at least one width adjustment system is adapted to adjust the width of the rack door between a first width and a second width; Claim 8 of wherein while the width of the door is adjusted to the second width, the first edge of the first panel is not aligned with the second edge of the second panel; Claim 9 of wherein while the width of the door is adjusted to the second width, the perforated portion of the first panel at least partially overlaps with the perforated portion of the second panel; Claim 10 of wherein the at least one width adjustment system comprises: a structural member of the first panel; a structural member of the second panel; and a securing mechanism to reversibly fixedly attach the structural member of the first panel to the structural member of the second panel; Claim 11 of wherein the at least one width adjustment system comprises two width adjustment system, a first of the two width adjustment systems being positioned with a top of the first panel and a top of the second panel, and a second of the two width adjustment systems being positioned with a bottom of the first panel and a bottom of the second panel; (iv) Claim 14 of at least one width adjustment system adapted to adjust a width of the rack door to conform to a width of the electronic rack with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the electronic rack.
Regarding (iii) claims 6-7, 19-20, in view of the modification of Lewis as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lewis, as modified, to include the limitations in Claims 6 and 19 of wherein while the width of the door is adjusted to the first width, a first edge of the first panel is aligned with a second edge of the second panel; and Claims 7 and 20 of wherein while the width of the door is adjusted to the first width, a perforated portion of the first panel does not overlap with a perforated portion of the second panel with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the electronic rack.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis, as modified, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USP 7595985 to Adducci et al (hereinafter Adducci).
Lewis, as modified, discloses all the elements as discussed above except for the limitations recited in the above listed claims.
However, Adducci discloses an electronic rack comprising: a frame comprising an area for housing chassis that are each adapted to house a respective data processing system; and a rack door 500 that is attached to the frame and adapted to selectively restrict access to the area, the rack door 500 comprising (such as shown in Fig. 19): a handle 510 movable between a first handle area and a second handle area of the door; a locking mechanism 530 adapted to: be positioned with the first handle area and the second handle area, and reversibly fixedly secure the rack door to the frame.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of Adducci, to modify Lewis, as modified, to include the limitations in Claim 12 of wherein the rack door further comprises: a handle movable between a first handle area of the first panel and a second handle area of the second panel; and Claim 13 of wherein the rack door further comprises: a locking mechanism adapted to: be positioned with the first handle area and the second handle area, and reversibly fixedly secure the rack door to the frame with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the electronic rack.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and all show structures similar to various elements of applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH VAN TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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.
HVT
January 21, 2026
/HANH V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637