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 .
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 claims “times of an average moment of inertia of cross sections of the first plate in a first direction fall within a range from 1.14 to 1.18.” However, it is unclear “times” what the average moment of inertia is being compared against. For the purposes of examination, the cited limitation will be interpreted as 1.14 to 1.18 time greater that a plate without embossments.
Claims 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected for the same reason.
Claims 2-6, 8-15 and 17-20 are rejected due to their dependency.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (US Publication No. 2020/0187378).
Regarding claim 1 (as best understood), Shen discloses a rack assembly (comprised of server chassis 10 and rack 600), comprising: a rack (600); and an electronic device casing (10), mounted in the rack (600) and comprising: a first plate (bottom plate 110), comprising a support portion (upper portion of 110) and at least one embossing structure (pattern 200), wherein the support portion (upper portion of 110) has a support surface (load surface 111), the at least one embossing structure (200) is formed on the support surface (111), sidewalls 120), standing on two opposite sides of the support surface (111) of the support portion (upper portion of 110) of the first plate (110), wherein the first plate (110) and the two second plates (120) together form an accommodation space (accommodation space 122).
Regarding the limitation “times of an average moment of inertia of cross sections of the first plate in a first direction fall within a range from 1.14 to 1.18,” because the first plate of the claimed invention has identical structure and proportion to the first plate of Shen, and because the average moment of inertia calculation is simply based on variable distance and cross-section area measurements, the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range because doing so would have increased the load bearing capacity of the first plate (see Paragraphs [0028], [0044], and [0049] in Shen).
Regarding claim 2, Shen teaches the rack assembly according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the at least one embossing structure (200) comprises a plurality of embossing structures (see Figures 1-3), and the plurality of embossing structures (200) are arranged in an array (see Figures 2-8).
Regarding claim 3 (as best understood), Shen teaches the rack assembly according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein times of an average moment of inertia of cross sections of the first plate in a second direction (between x-direction and y-direction) fall within a range from 1.14 to 1.18, and the second direction (between x-direction and y-direction) intersects the first direction (y-direction).
Regarding the limitation “wherein times of an average moment of inertia of cross sections of the first plate in a second direction fall within a range from 1.14 to 1.18,” because the first plate of the claimed invention has identical structure and proportion to the first plate of Shen, and because the average moment of inertia calculation is simply based on variable distant and cross-section area measurements, the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range because doing so would have increased the load bearing capacity of the first plate (see Paragraphs [0028], [0044], and [0049] in Shen).
Regarding claim 4, Shen teaches the rack assembly according to claim 3, and further teaches wherein the second direction (between x-direction and y-direction) is non-perpendicular to the first direction (y-direction).
Regarding claim 5 (as best understood), Shen teaches the rack assembly according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the times of the average moment of inertia of the sections of the first plate (110) in the first direction (y-direction) fall within a range from 1.15 to 1.17.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the times of the average moment of inertia of the sections of the first plate in the first direction fall within a range from 1.15 to 1.17,” because the first plate of the claimed invention has identical structure and proportion to the first plate of Shen, and because the average moment of inertia calculation is simply based on variable distance and cross-section area measurements, the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range because doing so would have increased the load bearing capacity of the first plate (see Paragraphs [0028], [0044], and [0049] in Shen).
Regarding claim 6, Shen teaches the rack assembly according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the two second plates (120) are respectively mounted on two opposite sides of the rack (600), and the first direction (y-direction) is parallel to the two second plates (120).
Regarding claim 7 (as best understood), Shen discloses an electronic device casing, comprising: a first plate (110), comprising: a support portion (upper portion of 110), having a support surface (loading surface 111); and at least one embossing structure (pattern 200), formed on the support surface (111), 120), standing on two opposite sides of the support surface (opposite sides of 111) of the support portion (upper portion of 110) of the first plate (110), wherein the first plate (110) and the two second plates (120) together form an accommodation space (accommodation space 122).
Regarding the limitation “wherein times of an average moment of inertia of cross sections of the first plate in a first direction fall within a range from 1.14 to 1.18,” because the first plate of the claimed invention has identical structure and proportion to the first plate of Shen, and because the average moment of inertia calculation is simply based on variable distant and cross-section area measurements, the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range because doing so would have increased the load bearing capacity of the first plate (see Paragraphs [0028], [0044], and [0049] in Shen).
Regarding claim 8, Shen teaches the electronic device casing according to claim 7, and further teaches wherein the at least one embossing structure (200) comprises a plurality of embossing structures (see Figures 1-3), and the plurality of embossing structures (200) are arranged in an array (see Figures 2-8).
Regarding claim 9 (as best understood), Shen teaches the electronic device casing according to claim 7, and further teaches wherein times of an average moment of inertia of cross sections of the first plate (110) in a second direction (between x-direction and y-direction) fall within a range from 1.14 to 1.18, and the second direction (between x-direction and y-direction) intersects the first direction (y-direction).
Regarding the limitation “wherein times of an average moment of inertia of cross sections of the first plate in a second direction fall within a range from 1.14 to 1.18,” because the first plate of the claimed invention has identical structure and proportion to the first plate of Shen, and because the average moment of inertia calculation is simply based on variable distance and cross-section area measurements, the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range because doing so would have increased the load bearing capacity of the first plate (see Paragraphs [0028], [0044], and [0049] in Shen).
Regarding claim 10, Shen teaches the electronic device casing according to claim 9, and further teaches wherein the second direction (between x-direction and y-direction) is non-perpendicular to the first direction (y-direction).
Regarding claim 11 (as best understood), Shen teaches the electronic device casing according to claim 7, and further teaches wherein the times of the average moment of inertia of the sections of the first plate (110) in the first direction (y-direction) fall within a range from 1.15 to 1.17.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the times of the average moment of inertia of the sections of the first plate in the first direction fall within a range from 1.15 to 1.17,” because the first plate of the claimed invention has identical structure and proportion to the first plate of Shen, and because the average moment of inertia calculation is simply based on variable distance and cross-section area measurements, the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range because doing so would have increased the load bearing capacity of the first plate (see Paragraphs [0028], [0044], and [0049] in Shen).
Regarding claim 12, Shen teaches the electronic device casing according to claim 7, and further teaches wherein the at least one embossing structure (200) has a main portion (see annotated Figure 5 below) and a plurality of branch portions (see annotated Figure 5 below), the main portion (see annotated Figure 5 below) has a plurality of recesses (recesses 331), the plurality of recesses (331) are respectively located at two opposite sides (left side and right side of main portion identified in annotated Figure 5 below) of the main portion (see annotated Figure 5 below) and the plurality of branch portions (see annotated Figure 5 below) correspond to the plurality of recesses (331; see Paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 13, Shen teaches the electronic device casing according to claim 12, and further teaches wherein the plurality of recesses (331) comprises four recesses (see annotated Figure 5), two of the four recesses (top 331) are located at one side of the main portion (top side of main portion identified in Figure 5) and are spaced apart from each other (see annotated Figure 5), the other two of the four recesses (bottom 331) are located at another side of the main portion (bottom side of main portion identified in Figure 5) and are spaced apart from each other (see annotated Figure 5), the plurality of branch portions comprises two branch portions (top and bottom branch portions identified in annotated Figure 5), each of the two branch portions includes two end parts (ends of branch portions within 331; see Paragraph [0058] and annotated Figure 5) and a connection part (flat portion between ends of branch portions identified in annotated Figure 5) connected to the two end parts (see annotated Figure 5), the two end parts of one of the two branch portions (ends of top branch) respectively correspond to two of the four recesses (top 331) located at one side of the main portion (top side of main portion identified in annotated Figure 5), and the two end parts of the other one of the two branch portions (ends of bottom branch) respectively correspond to the other two of the four recesses (bottom 331) located at another side of the main portion
PNG
media_image1.png
612
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(bottom side of main portion identified in annotated Figure 5).
Regarding claim 14, Shen teaches the electronic device casing according to claim 12, and further teaches wherein the at least one embossing structure (200) comprises a plurality of embossing structures (see Figure 5) arranged in an array (see annotated Figure 5 below); in each of the plurality of embossing structures (see annotated Figure 5 below), the plurality of recesses (331) comprises four recesses (see annotated Figure 5 below), two of the four recesses (top 331) are located at one side of the main portion (top of main portion identified in annotated Figure 5 below) and are spaced apart from each other (see annotated Figure 5 below), the other two of the four recesses (bottom 331) are located at another side of the main portion (bottom of main portion identified in annotated Figure 5) and are spaced apart from each other (see annotated Figure 5 below), the plurality of branch portions (branches in annotated Figure 5 below) comprises four branch portions (branches identified in annotated Figure 5 below), each of the four branch portions (branches identified in annotated Figure 5 below) comprises an end part (ends of branches) and a connection part (middle portion branches) connected to the end part (ends of branches), the two end parts of two of the four branch portions (ends of top branches) respectively correspond to two of the four recesses (top 331; see Paragraph [0058]) located at one side of the main portion (top of main portion identified in annotated Figure 5), the two end parts of the other two of the four branch portions (ends of bottom branches) respectively correspond to the other two of the four recesses (bottom 331; see Paragraph [0058]) located at another side of the main portion (bottom of main portion identified in annotated Figure 5); in two of the plurality of embossing structures located adjacent to each other (see Figure 5), the two end parts of two of the branch portions (ends of top branches) are connected to each other via the two connection parts (middle of top branches), and the two end parts of other two of the branch portions (ends of bottom branches) are connected to each other via the two connection parts (middle of bottom branches).
PNG
media_image2.png
612
844
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Shen teaches the electronic device casing according to claim 7, and further teaches wherein the first direction (y-direction) is parallel to the two second plates (120).
Regarding claim 16 (as best understood), Shen discloses a plate (bottom plate 110), comprising: a support portion (upper portion of 110), having a support surface (111); and at least one embossing structure (pattern 200), formed on the support surface (111); wherein times of an average moment of inertia of cross sections of the plate (110) in a first direction (y-direction) fall within a range from 1.14 to 1.18.
Regarding the limitation “wherein times of an average moment of inertia of cross sections of the plate in a first direction fall within a range from 1.14 to 1.18,” because the first plate of the claimed invention has identical structure and proportion to the first plate of Shen, and because the average moment of inertia calculation is simply based on variable distance and cross-section area measurements, the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range because doing so would have increased the load bearing capacity of the first plate (see Paragraphs [0028], [0044], and [0049] in Shen).
Regarding claim 17 (as best understood), Shen teaches the plate according to claim 16, and further teaches wherein times of an average moment of inertia of cross sections of the plate (110) in a second direction (between x-direction and y-direction) fall within a range from 1.14 to 1.18, and the second direction (between x-direction and y-direction) intersects the first direction (y-direction).
Regarding the limitation “wherein times of an average moment of inertia of cross sections of the first plate in a second direction fall within a range from 1.14 to 1.18,” because the first plate of the claimed invention has identical structure and proportion to the first plate of Shen, and because the average moment of inertia calculation is simply based on variable distance and cross-section area measurements, the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range because doing so would have increased the load bearing capacity of the first plate (see Paragraphs [0028], [0044], and [0049] in Shen).
Regarding claim 18, Shen teaches the plate according to claim 17, and further teaches wherein the second direction (between x-direction and y-direction) is non-perpendicular to the first direction (y-direction).
Regarding claim 19 (as best understood), Shen teaches the plate according to claim 16, and further teaches wherein the times of the average moment of inertia of the sections of the plate (110) in the first direction (y-direction) fall within a range from 1.15 to 1.17.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the times of the average moment of inertia of the sections of the first plate in the first direction fall within a range from 1.15 to 1.17,” because the first plate of the claimed invention has identical structure and proportion to the first plate of Shen, and because the average moment of inertia calculation is simply based on variable distance and cross-section area measurements, the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range because doing so would have increased the load bearing capacity of the first plate (see Paragraphs [0028], [0044], and [0049] in Shen).
Regarding claim 20, Shen teaches the plate according to claim 16, and further teaches wherein the at least one embossing structure has a main portion (see annotated Figure 5 above) and a plurality of branch portions (see annotated Figure 5 above), the main portion has a plurality of recesses (recesses 331), the plurality of recesses (331) are respectively located at two opposite sides of the main portion (see annotated Figure 5 above), and the plurality of branch portions (see annotated Figure 5 above) correspond to the plurality of recesses (331).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Publication No. 2015/0099137 and US Patent No. 11751354 also render the claimed device obvious.
US Patent/Publication Nos. 2536759 3117616 4241146 4317350 4358916 20040042175 20070041160 20150167215 20160009527 20220126931 also teach corrugating/embossing a plate to increase its strength/moment of inertia.
US Patent/Publication Nos. 20050211456 20110273069 9198321 11716827 11765853 also teach different means of increasing the strength of a server chassis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GAGE STEPHEN CRUM whose telephone number is (571)272-3373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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 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.
/GAGE CRUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
gsc
Prosecution Insights