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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segroves (US 20150366094 A1, and Segroves hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1, Segroves discloses a self-fixturing frame assembly comprising:
a base sub-assembly (fig. 5: including 220B and bottom instances of 210), the base sub-assembly including a plurality of base frame members (fig. 5), at least one base frame member of the plurality of base frame members coupled to an additional at least one base frame member of the plurality of base frame members (fig. 5) via fasteners (“front-to-back beams 210 are permanently connected to side-to-side beams 220A, 220B, for example, using … rivets”, [0094]), upon coupling the at least one base frame member to the additional at least one base frame member, the at least one base frame member being welded to the additional at least one base frame member (rivets and welds, [0094]);
one or more side sub-assemblies (fig. 5: including 230 and 240), each side sub-assembly of the one or more side sub-assemblies including a plurality of side frame members (fig. 5), at least one side frame member of the plurality of side frame members coupled to an additional at least one side frame member of the plurality of side frame members (fig. 5) via the fasteners (fig. 6, e.g., coupled through 220A; “230 are permanently connected to side-to-side beams 220A, 220B, for example, using permanent connectors, such as rivets”, [0095] and “240 are permanently connected to side-to- side beams 220A, 220B, for example, using permanent connectors, such as rivets”, [0096]), upon coupling the at least one side frame member to the additional at least one side frame member, the at least one side frame member being welded to the additional at least one side frame member (“rivets and welds”, [0095-0096]), the one or more side sub-assemblies couplable to the base sub-assembly via fasteners the at least one side frame member to the additional at least one side frame member (figs. 5-6); and
a top sub-assembly (fig. 5: including 220A and top instances of 210), the top sub-assembly including a plurality of top frame members (fig. 5), wherein the plurality of top frame members are configured to be coupled to the one or more side sub-assemblies (figs. 5-6).
Segroves does not explicitly disclose two or more fasteners prior to welding (referring to the coupling between base frame members and between sub-assemblies); however, Segroves discloses that the coupling is realized via fasteners and figs. 5 and 14 of Segroves show that the portion of side frame 210 that overlaps 220B has two holes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized this as a suggestion that at least two fasteners (corresponding to said two holes) could have been used for the coupling mentioned above. In addition, a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that including additional fasteners is equivalent to a mere duplication of parts. Duplication of parts has been ruled to carry no patentable significance unless a new unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). MPEP § 2144.04, VI, C). Furthermore, chronological limitations such as “prior to welding” and/or “upon coupling” of product-by-process claims are considered during the examination process under the legal precedents by the courts that patentability does not depend on the method of production but on the final product itself (“Even 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). See MPEP § 2113). Since Segroves discloses coupling that include rivets and welds, (“front-to-back beams 210 are permanently connected to side-to-side beams 220A, 220B, for example, using , using permanent connectors, such as rivets and welds”, [0094] of Segroves), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found that the final product disclosed by Segroves matches the structural requirements of the claimed product.
Regarding Claim 2, Segroves discloses the self-fixturing frame assembly of Claim 1, wherein the two or more fasteners include two or more rivets (“rivets”, [[0094]. See also rejection of Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 5, Segroves discloses the self-fixturing frame assembly of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of side frame members includes four side frame members (fig. 5. See also rejection of Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 6, Segroves discloses the self-fixturing frame assembly of Claim 1, wherein the base sub-assembly includes one or more feet (fig. 7: element located below 220B).
Regarding Claim 7, Segroves discloses the self-fixturing frame assembly of Claim 1, wherein the base sub-assembly includes one or more wheels (fig. 8: 260A and 260B).
Regarding Claim 8, Segroves discloses the self-fixturing frame assembly of Claim 1, wherein each side sub-assembly further comprises: one or more side panel members (fig. 3: 410, fig. 32).
Regarding Claim 9, Segroves discloses the self-fixturing frame assembly of Claim 8, wherein one or more side panel members include one or more cut-outs (opening created in 410 for 33 in fig. 32 and 35 in fig. 34).
Regarding Claim 10, Segroves discloses the self-fixturing frame assembly of Claim 8, wherein one or more side panel members include one or more perforations (fig. 32: rectangular pattern around the edges of 410 that includes clusters at the bottom left and top right corners. See also cluster at 37 of fig. 34).
Regarding Claim 20, Segroves discloses an enclosure comprising: a self-fixturing frame assembly comprising:
a base sub-assembly (fig. 5: including 220B and bottom instances of 210), the base sub-assembly including a plurality of base frame members (fig. 5), at least one base frame member of the plurality of base frame members coupled to an additional at least one base frame member of the plurality of base frame members (fig. 5) via fasteners (“front-to-back beams 210 are permanently connected to side-to-side beams 220A, 220B, for example, using … rivets”, [0094]; plural form indicates two or more), upon coupling the at least one base frame member to the additional at least one base frame member, the at least one base frame member being welded to the additional at least one base frame member (rivets and welds, [0094]);
one or more side sub-assemblies (fig. 5: including 230 and 240), each side sub-assembly of the one or more side sub-assemblies including a plurality of side frame members (fig. 5), at least one side frame member of the plurality of side frame members coupled to an additional at least one side frame member of the plurality of side frame members (fig. 5) via the fasteners (fig. 6, e.g., coupled through 220A; “230 are permanently connected to side-to-side beams 220A, 220B, for example, using permanent connectors, such as rivets”, [0095] and “240 are permanently connected to side-to- side beams 220A, 220B, for example, using permanent connectors, such as rivets”, [0096]), upon coupling the at least one side frame member to the additional at least one side frame member, the at least one side frame member being welded to the additional at least one side frame member (“rivets and welds”, [0095-0096]), the one or more side sub-assemblies couplable to the base sub-assembly upon welding the at least one side frame member to the additional at least one side frame member (figs. 5-6 in view of [0095-0096]); and
a top sub-assembly (fig. 5: including 220A and top instances of 210), the top sub-assembly including a plurality of top frame members (fig. 5), wherein the plurality of top frame members are configured to be coupled to the one or more side sub-assemblies (figs. 5-6), wherein the base sub-assembly, the one or more side sub-assemblies, and the top sub-assembly at least partially define a cavity (fig. 4) configured to hold one or more pieces of equipment (“As shown in FIGS. 22-27, equipment rails 300B include mounting openings 340 for mounting electronic equipment, such as servers, patch panels, and switches, in electronics cabinet 100”, [0106]); and
one or more panel walls (fig. 3: 400 and 500), wherein the one or more panel walls are configured to couple to at least one of the base sub-assembly, the one or more side sub-assemblies, or the top sub-assembly (fig. 2).
Segroves does not explicitly disclose two or more fasteners prior to welding (referring to the coupling between base frame members and between sub-assemblies); however, Segroves discloses that the coupling is realized via fasteners and figs. 5 and 14 of Segroves show that the portion of side frame 210 that overlaps 220B has two holes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized this as a suggestion that at least two fasteners (corresponding to said two holes) could have been used for the coupling mentioned above. In addition, a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that including additional fasteners is equivalent to a mere duplication of parts. Duplication of parts has been ruled to carry no patentable significance unless a new unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). MPEP § 2144.04, VI, C). Furthermore, adding “prior to welding” is consistent with chronological limitations of product-by-process claims and the courts have ruled that patentability does not depend on the method of production but on the final product itself (“Even 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). See MPEP § 2113). Since Segroves discloses coupling that include rivets and welds, (“front-to-back beams 210 are permanently connected to side-to-side beams 220A, 220B, for example, using , using permanent connectors, such as rivets and welds”, [0094] of Segroves), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found that the final product disclosed by Segroves matches the structural requirements of the claimed product.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segroves in view of Garza (US 20100193754 A1, and Garza hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 3, Segroves discloses the self-fixturing frame assembly of Claim 1, but does not explicitly discloses the plurality of top frame members includes three top frame members.
Garza discloses a plurality of top frame members includes three top frame members (fig. 4: top frame 50 is formed by two instances of 52 and one instance of 54).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Segroves to incorporate the teachings of Garza so that the plurality of top frame members includes three top frame members, in order to reduce the number of parts while providing structural resistance under load (“The top frame 50 includes two side assemblies 52 and a cross member 54 … provides tensional resistance when the cable manager 30 is under load”, [0134]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segroves in view of Pflum (US 20090056248 A1, and Pflum hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 4, Segroves discloses the self-fixturing frame assembly of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the plurality of base frame members includes seven base frame members.
Pflum discloses a frame assembly wherein a plurality of base frame members includes seven base frame members (fig. 3: including 4 instances of 22 and 3 instances of 26).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Segroves to incorporate the teachings of Pflum so that the plurality of base frame members includes seven base frame members, in order to structurally strengthen the base (“The one or more cross members 26 function to, in one example, structurally strengthen the base 20, making the base 20 more rigid”, [0041] of Pflum).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segroves in view of Pringle (US 5277412 A, and Pringle hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 11, Segroves discloses a method of fabricating a self-fixturing frame assembly comprising:
fabricating a base sub-assembly (fig. 5: including 220B and bottom instances of 210) by coupling at least one base frame member of a plurality of base frame members (fig. 5) to an additional at least one base frame member of the plurality of base frame members (fig. 5) via fasteners (“front-to-back beams 210 are permanently connected to side-to-side beams 220A, 220B, for example, using … rivets”, [0094]; plural form indicates two or more), upon coupling the at least one base frame member to the additional at least one base frame member, the at least one base frame member being welded to the additional at least one base frame member (rivets and welds, [0094]);
fabricating one or more side sub-assemblies (fig. 5: including 230 and 240) by coupling at least one side frame member of a plurality of side frame members to an additional at least one side frame member of the plurality of side frame members (fig. 5) via fasteners (fig. 6, e.g., coupled through 220A; “230 are permanently connected to side-to-side beams 220A, 220B, for example, using permanent connectors, such as rivets”, [0095] and “240 are permanently connected to side-to- side beams 220A, 220B, for example, using permanent connectors, such as rivets”, [0096]), upon coupling the at least one side frame member to the additional at least one side frame member, the at least one side frame member being welded to the additional at least one side frame member (“rivets and welds”, [0095-0096]);
upon welding the at least one side frame member to the additional at least one side frame member, coupling the one or more side sub-assemblies to the base sub-assembly via the fasteners (figs. 5-6 in view of [0095-0096]); and
coupling a top sub-assembly (fig. 5: including 220A and top instances of 210) to the one or more side sub-assemblies, the top sub-assembly including a plurality of top frame members (fig. 5), wherein the plurality of top frame members are configured to be coupled to the one or more side sub-assemblies (fig. 5).
Segroves does not explicitly disclose two or more fasteners prior to welding (referring to the coupling between base frame members and between sub-assemblies); however, Segroves discloses that the coupling is realized via fasteners and figs. 5 and 14 of Segroves show that the portion of side frame 210 that overlaps 220B has two holes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized this as a suggestion that at least two fasteners (corresponding to said two holes) could have been used for the coupling mentioned above. In addition, a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that including additional fasteners is equivalent to a mere duplication of parts. Duplication of parts has been ruled to carry no patentable significance unless a new unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). MPEP § 2144.04, VI, C).
Pringle discloses a method of fabricating a frame assembly including use of fasteners prior to welding (“The frame generally consists of a plurality of frame elements or other structural members which are assembled on an assembly platform for proper positioning relative to one another prior to welding or otherwise fastening the structural members to one another”, Col. 1, ln. 14-18).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Segroves to incorporate the teachings of Pingle so that the two or more fasteners are implemented prior to welding, in order to facilitate proper positioning relative to one another (Col. 1, ln. 14-18 of Segroves).
Regarding Claim 12, Segroves/Pringle discloses the method of Claim 11, wherein the two or more fasteners include two or more rivets (“rivets”, [[0094] of Segroves. See also rejection of Claim 11 above).
Regarding Claim 15, Segroves/Pringle discloses the method of Claim 11, wherein the plurality of side frame members includes four side frame members (fig. 5 of Segroves. See also rejection of Claim 11 above).
Regarding Claim 16, Segroves/Pringle discloses the method of Claim 11, wherein the base sub-assembly includes one or more feet (fig. 7 of Segroves: element located below 220B).
Regarding Claim 17, Segroves/Pringle discloses the method of Claim 11, wherein each side sub-assembly further comprises: one or more side panel members (fig. 3 of Segroves: 410, fig. 32)..
Regarding Claim 18, Segroves/Pringle discloses the method of Claim 17, wherein one or more side panel members include one or more cut-outs (Segroves: opening created in 410 for 33 in fig. 32, and for 35 in fig. 34).
Regarding Claim 19, Segroves/Pringle discloses the method of Claim 17, wherein one or more side panel members include one or more perforations (fig. 32 of Segroves: rectangular pattern around the edges of 410 that includes clusters at the bottom left and top right corners. See also cluster at 37 of fig. 34).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segroves in view of Pringle, further in view of Garza.
Regarding Claim 13, Segroves/Pringle discloses the method of Claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose the plurality of top frame members includes three top frame members).
Garza discloses a plurality of top frame members includes three top frame members (fig. 4: top frame 50 is formed by two instances of 52 and one instance of 54).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Segroves and Garza to incorporate the teachings of Garza so that the plurality of top frame members includes three top frame members, in order to reduce the number of parts while providing structural resistance under load (“The top frame 50 includes two side assemblies 52 and a cross member 54 … provides tensional resistance when the cable manager 30 is under load”, [0134] of Garza).
Regarding Claim 14, Segroves/Pringle discloses the method of Claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose the plurality of base frame members includes seven base frame members.
Pflum discloses a frame assembly wherein a plurality of base frame members includes seven base frame members (fig. 3: including 4 instances of 22 and 3 instances of 26).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Segroves and Pringle to incorporate the teachings of Pflum so that the plurality of base frame members includes seven base frame members, in order to structurally strengthen the base (“The one or more cross members 26 function to, in one example, structurally strengthen the base 20, making the base 20 more rigid”, [0041] of Pflum).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/02/2026, regarding Claims 1 and 20, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 20, Applicant argues that “In particular, Segroves paragraph [0094] merely lists "rivets and welds" as interchangeable attachment methods that may be used independently of one another. This is further confirmed by Segroves paragraph [0121], which uses the phrase "rivets or welds," explicitly presenting these as alternative permanent connection methods. Notably, Segroves uses the phrase "such as rivets and welds" presenting these as alternative examples of permanent connectors that may be selected in lieu of one another-not as a combined sequential process. There is no teaching or suggestion in Segroves that rivets should be used first to hold components in position, followed by welding. Moreover, Segroves paragraph [0097] confirms that the assembly approach of Segroves is fundamentally different from amended claim 1, as components such as vertical posts 230 and face plates 240 "might be assembled after shipping electronics cabinet 100, for example, at a data center," rather than being self- fixtured and welded as discrete sub-assemblies prior to final assembly. Segroves does not teach or suggest a sequential process where fasteners first hold frame members in position prior to welding to enable self-fixturing, as recited in amended Claim 1” … “In particular, Segroves paragraph [0094] merely lists "rivets and welds" as interchangeable attachment methods that may be used independently of one another. This is further confirmed by Segroves paragraph [0121], which uses the phrase "rivets or welds," explicitly presenting these as alternative permanent connection methods. Notably, Segroves uses the phrase "such as rivets and welds" presenting these as alternative examples of permanent connectors that may be selected in lieu of one another-not as a combined sequential process”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The references to elements 210, 220A, 220B, 230, 240 of Segroves, and cited in rejection of claims 1, 11, and 20, indicate a coupling method of rivets and welds recited in the inclusive form: “beams 210 are permanently connected to side-to- side beams 220A, 220B, for example, using permanent connectors, such as rivets and welds”, [0094]; “face plates 240 are permanently connected to side-to- side beams 220A, 220B, for example, using permanent connectors, such as rivets and welds”, [0096]. Segroves explicitly discloses an alternative to said permanent coupling of rivets and welds: “it is likewise contemplated that front-to-back beams 210 are removably connected to side-to- side beams 220A, 220B, for example, using removable connectors, such as nuts and bolts and screws”, [0094]. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would recognize that Segroves contemplates the possibility of using both “rivets” and “welds” together rather than understanding them as interchangeable attachment methods that may be used independently of one another. Furthermore, Claims 1 and 20 are product by process claims (“at least one base frame member of the plurality of base frame members coupled to an additional at least one base frame member of the plurality of base frame members via two or more fasteners prior to welding, upon coupling the at least one base frame member….”).
Applicant further argues “Notably, Segroves uses the phrase "such as rivets and welds" presenting these as alternative examples of permanent connectors that may be selected in lieu of one another-not as a combined sequential process. There is no teaching or suggestion in Segroves that rivets should be used first to hold components in position, followed by welding”.
Examiner indicates that chronological limitations such as “prior to welding” and/or “upon coupling” of product-by-process claims are considered during the examination process under the legal precedents by the courts that patentability does not depend on the method of production but on the final product itself (“Even 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). See MPEP § 2113). Since Segroves discloses coupling methods that include rivets and welds, (“front-to-back beams 210 are permanently connected to side-to-side beams 220A, 220B, for example, using , using permanent connectors, such as rivets and welds”, [0094] of Segroves), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found that the final product disclosed by Segroves matches the structural requirements of the claimed product. See rejection of Claims 1 and 20 above for more details.
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 Martin A Asmat-Uceda whose telephone number is (571)270-7198. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 5 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, Allen L 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.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/MARTIN ANTONIO ASMAT UCEDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights