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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The two information disclosure statements fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU (CN 10-810762 A) in view of CHOI et al (KR 20220036798 A ) and YOO et al (KR 10-1865151 B1).
The LIU reference discloses a structure comprising (Figs. 1 & 2): a support portion (3) disposed to extend in one direction, and coupled to one surface of an external frame (Fig. 1); and a plate portion (2) disposed to extend in a direction different from the one direction (Fig. 2), coupled to the support portion (Fig. 1).
The LIU reference does not disclose that the plate portion (2) comprises an inner winding member around which an optical fiber cable configured to sense a temperature of the of the electronic module adjacent to the plate (2) is wound on an outer peripheral surface thereof. However, it was known in the art to wrap optical temperature sensing cables around winding members located on a cable support plate to monitor the temperature of the cables extending therethrough and the neighboring equipment as shown by the example of CHOI (pp. 17-19); therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to modify the cable support plate (2) of LIU to include temperature sensing optical cables and the support winding member for the sensing cables, in order to monitor the temperature inside of the electronic cabinet that the cable support structure was a part of for safety reasons.
The LIU reference does not expressly state that the disclosed structure was “disposed adjacent to a server module”; but since the structure disclosed in the LIU reference was intended to be used to route and support power cables and/or communications cables in a cabinet made for housing for generic electronic equipment, then it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to use this housing to support electronic servers, such as the servers disclosed in the YOO reference, motivated by its art recognized suitability for its intended use.
With respect to claim 2, see Figure 2 of LIU.
With respect to claim 3, making a support adjustable to accommodate electronic devices of different sizes was known and would have been an obvious modification to make to the support structure of LIU for the same reason.
With respect to claim 4, this structure was disclosed in CHOI et al.
With respect to claim 5, making the winding member hollow would have been obvious to save material and weight.
With respect to claim 6, this structure was disclosed in CHOI et al.
With respect tot claim 7, making features separable and replaceable would have been an obvious design choice1.
With respect to claim 8, making a duplicate winding (the outer winding) would have been an obvious design choice, as our reviewing court has held that a mere duplication of parts would have been obvious absent some unforeseen result2.
With respect to claim 9, the plate shown in LIU has cable passage holes, and the relative sizes of the holes would have been an obvious parameter to optimize through routine trial and error3.
With respect to claim 10, the location of the cable through holes of LIU would have been an obvious parameter to optimize through routine trial and error4.
With respect to claims 11 & 12, providing through holes with a lip portion to prevent the cables from fraying on a sharp edge was known in general, and would have been an obvious modification to make to the plate of LIU.
With respect to claim 13, obviously a “communications hole” that allows passage of a cable from the inside to the outside of the frame would itself be open from the inside to the outside of the frame.
With respect to claim 14, the use of screw holes (coupling holes) and screws (coupling members) to fasten parts together was old and well known, and their use to manufacture the frame of LIU would have been obvious based on their known suitability for their intended use.
Claims 15-20 simply repeat limitations already addressed, above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY W GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2103. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Friday 10AM-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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
RANDY W. GIBSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2856
/RANDY W GIBSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.").
2 In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
3 [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
4 [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Prosecution Insights