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 .
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “mounting structures” and “first mounting structure” in claims 1, 2, 13-16 and 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2 and 16 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.
Claims 2 and 16 recite “mounting holes”. It’s unclear whether the first mounting structure comprises mounting holes or that mounting holes are separate structure than the first mounting structure. In order to examine this application, examiner will assume the first mounting structure comprises mounting holes.
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)(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 1-3, 9, 15-16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yao et al. (US 2024/0220439; hereinafter “Yao”).
Regarding claim 1, Yao discloses a chassis (Figs. 1-6) comprising:
basic computing units (10) of different sizes (see table 2 which shows A1-C2; also Figs. 5-6; [0018, 0138-144]) comprising a first basic computing unit (10, Fig. 4), wherein the first basic computing unit comprises:
a processor (12);
a memory (13); and
an external interface (11) configured to provide communication for the first basic computing unit with an extension unit (20);
the extension unit configured to extend a function of the first basic computing unit ([0012-0014]); and
mounting structures (holes 1-12 in Fig. 5; 101, 102, Fig. 6) comprising a first mounting structure (any one of the mounting structure or [0134]: “…fixing structure through a fastener…”) configured to fasten the first basic computing unit to the chassis,
wherein a first position of the first mounting structure on the first basic computing unit is based on the processor, the memory, and a stress factor (see examiner’s note below regarding product-by-process claim), and
wherein positions of the mounting structures on the basic computing units overlap (inherently true in order to fasten basic computing units to chassis).
*Note that the limitation, “a first position of the first mounting structure on the first basic computing unit is based on the processor, the memory, and a stress factor”, is considered a product-by-process claim. “[E]ven though product-by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 2 as best understood, Yao discloses the chassis of claim 1, and Yao further discloses wherein the first mounting structure meets one or more of the following conditions:
first distances among different mounting holes of the first basic computing unit is an integer multiple of 10 millimeters (mm); or
second distances between adjacent mounting holes of the first basic computing unit does not exceed a preset range (Figs. 5-6 shows holes 1-12 does not exceed a preset range).
Regarding claim 3, Yao discloses the chassis of claim 1, and Yao further discloses wherein the external interface comprises a high-speed interface, and wherein the basic computing units are mounted on the chassis and coupled through the high speed interface (as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Yao discloses the chassis of claim 1, and Yao further discloses wherein the first basic computing unit comprises a plurality of areas (plurality of areas of 10) based on a hardware configuration or a cabling layout on the first basic computing unit (see examiner’s note below regarding product-by-process claim).
*Note that the limitation, “a first position of the first mounting structure on the first basic computing unit is based on a hardware configuration or a cabling layout on the first basic computing unit”, is considered a product-by-process claim. “[E]ven though product-by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 15, Yao discloses a computing device (Figs. 1-6) comprising:
a chassis (chassis shown in Fig. 4); and
a mainboard (same as motherboard) located in the chassis and comprising: basic computing units (10) of different sizes (see table 2 which shows A1-C2; also Figs. 5-6; [0018, 0138-144]) comprising a first basic computing unit (10, Fig. 4), wherein the first basic computing unit comprises:
a processor (12);
a memory (13);
an external interface (11) configured to provide communication for the first basic computing unit with an extension unit (20); and
mounting structures (holes 1-12 in Fig. 5; 101, 102, Fig. 6) comprising a first mounting structure (any one of the mounting structure or [0134]: “…fixing structure through a fastener…”) located in the first basic computing unit and configured to fasten the first basic computing unit to the chassis,
wherein a first position of the first mounting structure on the first basic computing unit is based on the processor, the memory, and a stress factor (see examiner’s note below regarding product-by-process claim), and
wherein positions of the mounting structures on the basic computing units overlap (see overlapping holes in Fig. 5); and
the extension unit configured to extend a function of the first basic computing unit ([0012-0014]).
*Note that the limitation, “a first position of the first mounting structure on the first basic computing unit is based on the processor, the memory, and a stress factor”, is considered a product-by-process claim. “[E]ven though product-by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 16 as best understood, Yao discloses the computing device of claim 15, and Yao further discloses wherein the first mounting structure meets one or more of the following conditions:
first distances among different mounting holes of the first basic computing unit is an integer multiple of 10 millimeters (mm); or
second distances between adjacent mounting holes of the first basic computing unit does not exceed a preset range (Figs. 5-6 shows holes 1-12 does not exceed a preset range).
Regarding claim 21, Yao discloses a main board (same as motherboard) comprising:
basic computing units (10) of different sizes comprising a first basic computing unit (see table 2 which shows A1-C2; also Figs. 5-6; [0018, 0138-144]) comprising:
a processor (12);
a memory (13); and
an external interface (11) configured to provide communication for the first basic computing unit with an extension unit (20);
mounting structures (holes 1-12 in Fig. 5; 101, 102, Fig. 6) comprising a first mounting structure configured to fasten the first basic computing unit to a chassis on which the first basic computing unit is located (any one of the mounting structure or [0134]: “…fixing structure through a fastener…”),
wherein a first position of the first mounting structure on the first basic computing unit is based on the processor, the memory, and a stress factor (see examiner’s note below regarding product-by-process claim), and
wherein positions of the mounting structures on the basic computing units overlap (see overlapping holes in Fig. 5); and
the extension unit configured to extend a function of the first basic computing unit ([0012-0014]).
*Note that the limitation, “a first position of the first mounting structure on the first basic computing unit is based on the processor, the memory, and a stress factor”, is considered a product-by-process claim. “[E]ven though product-by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
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, 3, 4, 9-13, 15, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Flynn et al. (US 2008/0137284; hereinafter “Flynn”).
Regarding claim 1, Flynn discloses a chassis (732, Fig. 7) comprising:
basic computing units (computer components shown in Figs. 1-7) of different sizes (see Figs. 4, 5) comprising a first basic computing unit (110, 120, Fig. 1; 212, 222, Fig. 2, 300, Fig. 3; 412, 422, Fig. 4; 512, 522, Fig. 5), wherein the first basic computing unit comprises:
a processor ([0039]: “…processors, and memory chips…”; also see Fig. 3);
a memory ([0039]: “…processors, and memory chips…”; also see Fig. 3); and
an external interface (140, Fig. 1; or 210, 220 or 214, Fig. 2) configured to provide communication for the first basic computing unit with an extension unit (160, Fig. 1);
the extension unit configured to extend a function of the first basic computing unit ([0043]); and
mounting structures comprising a first mounting structure configured to fasten the first basic computing unit to the chassis (not explicitly shown, but must have mounting structure around 140, 214 to secure onto backplane; also note that physical portion of connector 140, 214 can also be reasonably interpret as mounting structures, since mounting structures it’s a broad term),
wherein a first position of the first mounting structure on the first basic computing unit is based on the processor, the memory, and a stress factor (see examiner’s note below regarding product-by-process claim), and
wherein positions of the mounting structures on the basic computing units overlap (inherently true because mounting structures are overlapping along backplane 160, 730).
*Note that the limitation, “a first position of the first mounting structure on the first basic computing unit is based on the processor, the memory, and a stress factor”, is considered a product-by-process claim. “[E]ven though product-by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 3, Flynn discloses the chassis of claim 1, and Flynn further discloses wherein the external interface comprises a high-speed interface, and wherein the basic computing units are mounted on the chassis and coupled through the high speed interface ([0041-0043]; also note that high-speed is subjective).
Regarding claim 4, Flynn discloses the chassis of claim 3, and Flynn further discloses wherein the basic computing units and the extension unit are coupled in a parallel-connected manner or a serial-connected manner (as shown in Figs. 2, 4, 5, 7; [0084-0085]).
Regarding claim 9, Flynn discloses the chassis of claim 1, and Flynn further discloses wherein the first basic computing unit comprises a plurality of areas (plurality of areas in Figs. 1-5) based on a hardware configuration or a cabling layout on the first basic computing unit (see examiner’s note below regarding product-by-process claim).
*Note that the limitation, “a first position of the first mounting structure on the first basic computing unit is based on a hardware configuration or a cabling layout on the first basic computing unit”, is considered a product-by-process claim. “[E]ven though product-by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 10, Flynn discloses the chassis of claim 9, and Flynn further discloses wherein the areas comprise:
a first area (such as 214 of 210, Fig. 2);
a second area (such as backplane connector of 220, Fig. 2); and
a third area (area of 212, 222, Fig. 2) located between the first area and the second area, wherein the first basic computing unit further comprises external interfaces located in the first area and the second area (as shown in Fig. 2), and wherein the processor and the memory are located in the third area (212, 222 have processor and memory, see [0044]: “… These computer components 212a-f and 222a-f may be micro-blades…”; see micro blades in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Flynn discloses the chassis of claim 1, and Flynn further discloses wherein the basic computing units further comprise a second basic computing unit (such as 222, Fig. 2), and wherein the chassis further comprises:
an ingress power supply (710, Fig. 7); and
a component (such as connecting component on backplane 730 or 112, Fig. 7; note component is a broad term),
wherein the external interface (210 or 220, Fig. 2) comprises:
a management interface ([0052]: “ …baseboard management controller…”) configured to couple the first basic computing unit to the extension unit;
a power interface configured to couple the first basic computing unit to the ingress power supply ([0081-0083]); and
a high-speed interface configured to couple the first basic computing unit to the component or the second basic computing unit ([0017. 0064]; note that high speed is subjective).
Regarding claim 12, Flynn discloses the chassis of claim 1, and Flynn further discloses wherein the basic computing units comprise different quantities of processors or different sizes of memories ([0006, 0039, 0060]).
Regarding claim 13, Flynn discloses the chassis of claim 1, and Flynn further disclose a lining board (730 can be considered as a lining board), wherein the first basic computing unit is either mounted on the lining board or directly mounted on the chassis via the first mounting structure.
Regarding claim 15, Flynn discloses a computing device comprising:
a chassis (732, Fig. 7); and
a mainboard (same as motherboard) located in the chassis and comprising: basic computing units (computer components shown in Figs. 1-7) of different sizes (see Figs. 4, 5) comprising a first basic computing unit (110, 120, Fig. 1; 212, 222, Fig. 2, 300, Fig. 3; 412, 422, Fig. 4; 512, 522, Fig. 5), wherein the first basic computing unit comprises:
a processor ([0039]: “…processors, and memory chips…”; also see Fig. 3);
a memory ([0039]: “…processors, and memory chips…”; also see Fig. 3);
an external interface (140, Fig. 1; or 210, 220 or 214, Fig. 2) configured to provide communication for the first basic computing unit with an extension unit (160, Fig. 1); and
mounting structures comprising a first mounting structure located in the first basic computing unit and configured to fasten the first basic computing unit to the chassis (not explicitly shown, but must have mounting structure around 140, 214 to secure onto backplane; also note that physical portion of connector 140, 214 can also be reasonably interpret as mounting structures, since mounting structures it’s a broad term),
wherein a first position of the first mounting structure on the first basic computing unit is based on the processor, the memory, and a stress factor (see examiner’s note below regarding product-by-process claim), and
wherein positions of the mounting structures on the basic computing units overlap (inherently true because mounting structures are overlapping along backplane 160, 730); and
the extension unit configured to extend a function of the first basic computing unit ([0043]).
*Note that the limitation, “a first position of the first mounting structure on the first basic computing unit is based on the processor, the memory, and a stress factor”, is considered a product-by-process claim. “[E]ven though product-by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 17, Flynn discloses the computing device of claim 15, and Flynn further discloses wherein the external interface comprises a high-speed interface, wherein the basic computing units are mounted on the chassis and coupled through the high-speed interface ([0041-0043]; also note that high-speed is subjective), and wherein the basic computing units and the extension unit are coupled in a parallel-connected manner or a serial-connected manner (as shown in Fig. 7; [0084-0085]).
Regarding claim 21, Flynn discloses a main board (same as motherboard) comprising:
basic computing units (computer components shown in Figs. 1-7) of different sizes (see Figs. 4, 5) comprising a first basic computing unit (110, 120, Fig. 1; 212, 222, Fig. 2, 300, Fig. 3; 412, 422, Fig. 4; 512, 522, Fig. 5) comprising:
a processor ([0039]: “…processors, and memory chips…”; also see Fig. 3);
a memory ([0039]: “…processors, and memory chips…”; also see Fig. 3); and
an external interface (140, Fig. 1; or 210, 220 or 214, Fig. 2) configured to provide communication for the first basic computing unit with an extension unit (160, Fig. 1);
mounting structures comprising a first mounting structure configured to fasten the first basic computing unit to a chassis on which the first basic computing unit is located (not explicitly shown, but must have mounting structure around 140, 214 to secure onto backplane; also note that physical portion of connector 140, 214 can also be reasonably interpret as mounting structures, since mounting structures it’s a broad term),
wherein a first position of the first mounting structure on the first basic computing unit is based on the processor, the memory, and a stress factor (see examiner’s note below regarding product-by-process claim), and
wherein positions of the mounting structures on the basic computing units overlap (inherently true because mounting structures are overlapping along backplane 160, 730); and
the extension unit configured to extend a function of the first basic computing unit ([0043]).
*Note that the limitation, “a first position of the first mounting structure on the first basic computing unit is based on the processor, the memory, and a stress factor”, is considered a product-by-process claim. “[E]ven though product-by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
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.
Claims 5-8 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao, and further in view of Examiner’s Official Notice (EON).
Regarding claims 5-8, Yao teaches the chassis of claim 4. Yao does not teach wherein the extension unit comprises management interfaces configured to couple the basic computing units in parallel to the extension unit; wherein the basic computing units comprise the first basic computing unit and a second basic computing unit; wherein the first basic computing unit has a primary identity based on a first management interface of the management interfaces that connects the first basic computing unit to the extension unit, and wherein the second basic computing unit has a secondary identity based on a second management interface of the management interfaces that connects the second basic computing unit to the extension unit; or wherein the extension unit comprises a management interface configured to couple the basic computing units in series to the extension unit; wherein the basic computing units comprise the first basic computing unit and a second basic computing unit, wherein the first basic computing unit has a primary identity based on connecting the first basic computing unit to the extension unit, and wherein the second basic computing unit has a secondary identity based on the primary identity. However, Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of the conventionality of the extension unit comprises management interfaces configured to couple the basic computing units in parallel to the extension unit; wherein the basic computing units comprise the first basic computing unit and a second basic computing unit; wherein the first basic computing unit has a primary identity based on a first management interface of the management interfaces that connects the first basic computing unit to the extension unit, and wherein the second basic computing unit has a secondary identity based on a second management interface of the management interfaces that connects the second basic computing unit to the extension unit; or wherein the extension unit comprises a management interface configured to couple the basic computing units in series to the extension unit; wherein the basic computing units comprise the first basic computing unit and a second basic computing unit, wherein the first basic computing unit has a primary identity based on connecting the first basic computing unit to the extension unit, and wherein the second basic computing unit has a secondary identity based on the primary identity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of EON with that of Yao since doing so would, predictably, allow management of each basic computing units.
Regarding claim 19-20, Yao teaches the computing device of claim 17. Yao does not teach wherein the extension unit comprises management interfaces, and wherein the basic computing units are coupled in parallel to the extension unit through the management interfaces; wherein the basic computing units further comprise a second basic computing unit, and wherein the management interfaces comprise: a first management interface configured to couple the first basic computing unit to the extension unit; and a second management interface configured to couple the second basic computing unit to the extension unit, wherein the first basic computing unit has a primary identity based on the first management interface, and wherein the second basic computing unit has a secondary identity based on the second management interface. However, Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of the conventionality of the extension unit comprises management interfaces, and wherein the basic computing units are coupled in parallel to the extension unit through the management interfaces; wherein the basic computing units further comprise a second basic computing unit, and wherein the management interfaces comprise: a first management interface configured to couple the first basic computing unit to the extension unit; and a second management interface configured to couple the second basic computing unit to the extension unit, wherein the first basic computing unit has a primary identity based on the first management interface, and wherein the second basic computing unit has a secondary identity based on the second management interface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of EON with that of Yao since doing so would, predictably, allow management of each basic computing units.
Claims 5-8 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flynn, and further in view of Examiner’s Official Notice (EON).
Regarding claims 5-8, Flynn teaches the chassis of claim 4. Flynn does not teach wherein the extension unit comprises management interfaces configured to couple the basic computing units in parallel to the extension unit; wherein the basic computing units comprise the first basic computing unit and a second basic computing unit; wherein the first basic computing unit has a primary identity based on a first management interface of the management interfaces that connects the first basic computing unit to the extension unit, and wherein the second basic computing unit has a secondary identity based on a second management interface of the management interfaces that connects the second basic computing unit to the extension unit; or wherein the extension unit comprises a management interface configured to couple the basic computing units in series to the extension unit; wherein the basic computing units comprise the first basic computing unit and a second basic computing unit, wherein the first basic computing unit has a primary identity based on connecting the first basic computing unit to the extension unit, and wherein the second basic computing unit has a secondary identity based on the primary identity. However, Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of the conventionality of the extension unit comprises management interfaces configured to couple the basic computing units in parallel to the extension unit; wherein the basic computing units comprise the first basic computing unit and a second basic computing unit; wherein the first basic computing unit has a primary identity based on a first management interface of the management interfaces that connects the first basic computing unit to the extension unit, and wherein the second basic computing unit has a secondary identity based on a second management interface of the management interfaces that connects the second basic computing unit to the extension unit; or wherein the extension unit comprises a management interface configured to couple the basic computing units in series to the extension unit; wherein the basic computing units comprise the first basic computing unit and a second basic computing unit, wherein the first basic computing unit has a primary identity based on connecting the first basic computing unit to the extension unit, and wherein the second basic computing unit has a secondary identity based on the primary identity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of EON with that of Flynn since doing so would, predictably, allow management of each basic computing units.
Regarding claim 19-20, Flynn teaches the computing device of claim 17. Flynn does not teach wherein the extension unit comprises management interfaces, and wherein the basic computing units are coupled in parallel to the extension unit through the management interfaces; wherein the basic computing units further comprise a second basic computing unit, and wherein the management interfaces comprise: a first management interface configured to couple the first basic computing unit to the extension unit; and a second management interface configured to couple the second basic computing unit to the extension unit, wherein the first basic computing unit has a primary identity based on the first management interface, and wherein the second basic computing unit has a secondary identity based on the second management interface. However, Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of the conventionality of the extension unit comprises management interfaces, and wherein the basic computing units are coupled in parallel to the extension unit through the management interfaces; wherein the basic computing units further comprise a second basic computing unit, and wherein the management interfaces comprise: a first management interface configured to couple the first basic computing unit to the extension unit; and a second management interface configured to couple the second basic computing unit to the extension unit, wherein the first basic computing unit has a primary identity based on the first management interface, and wherein the second basic computing unit has a secondary identity based on the second management interface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of EON with that of Flynn since doing so would, predictably, allow management of each basic computing units.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re claim 14, prior arts do not teach or suggest the combination of the chassis of claim 14, in particular, wherein the lining board comprises a self-clinching nut part, wherein the first basic computing unit is mounted on the lining board, and wherein a mounting height is based on a convex hull height of the self-clinching nut part.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WU whose telephone number is (571)270-7974. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Allen Parker can be reached at (303)297-4722. 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.
/JAMES WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights