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 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mendonsa (US 2022.0122637).
Regarding claim 1, Mendonsa disclose:
A method comprising: inserting a system tray into a computing cabinet with a connector in a first position, the system tray comprising a plurality of computing tiles; moving the connector in a first dimension from the first position to a second position where the connector is aligned with a computing tile connector of a computing tile of the plurality of computing tiles in the first dimension; and moving the connector in a second dimension that is orthogonal to the first dimension to connect the connector with the computing tile connector (see Fig. 2, 5a-d; [0054-0062]; system tray 510 inserted into computing cabinet 202a/500; computing tiles 510a,b; connector 530 to move in first direction (x) from first position (Fig. 5b) to second position (Fig. 5c); where connector is adjusted to connect with computing tile 510b and moved in second dimension (y) orthogonal to the first connection 510b (Fig. 5d))
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Mendonsa further disclose:
disconnecting the connector from the computing tile connector; moving the connector in the first dimension away from the computing tile; and removing the system tray from the computing cabinet (see Fig. 5a-d; disconnection action from Fig. 5d to 5c to 5b)
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein. Mendonsa further disclose:
the connector is connected to a second computing tile connector located in a second computing cabinet during the removing (see Fig. 2; second computing cabinet 202B connected thereto)
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Mendonsa further disclose:
moving the connector in the first dimension from the first position to the second position comprises using an alignment tool to move a Y-adjustment plate of a connector system along the first dimension, wherein the connector system comprises the connector (see Fig. 5a-d; ‘alignment tool’ 502 to move adjustment plate 546 along first dimension where connector 530 is comprised).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Mendonsa further disclose:
the first position of the connector is out of alignment with the computing tile and provides clearance for the inserting (see Fig. 5b)
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Mendonsa further disclose:
the computing cabinet is positioned adjacent to a second computing cabinet, and wherein the connector provides a connection between the computing tile and a second computing tile in the second computing cabinet (see Fig. 2; computing cabinet 202a and second cabinet 202b where connectors connect computing tiles to cabinets which are in turn connected)
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Mendonsa further disclose:
after the inserting there is no direct access to the connector (see Fig. 5d)
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Mendonsa further disclose:
there is no direct access to the connector during the inserting (see Fig. 5c transitioning to 5d)
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Mendonsa further disclose:
the connector is connected to a second computing tile connector located in a second computing cabinet during the moving the connector in the first dimension (see Fig. 2; all components of the device are interconnected, such that the second computing tile connector is connected to the first during the moving in the first dimension)
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Mendonsa further disclose:
after the system tray is inserted into the computing cabinet, inserting an assembly tool into a holder tube of the computing cabinet; and moving, using the assembly tool, the connector in alignment with the computing tile connector in a third dimension (see Fig. 2; [0053]; in the situation where the system tray is inserted, the motor is then inserted (moved) in holder tube 240 to align connector in third dimension (z)).
Regarding claim 11, Mendonsa disclose:
A computing system comprising: a computing tile positioned in a computing cabinet; and a connector assembly configured to connect the computing tile with another computing tile housed in a second computing cabinet, the connector assembly comprising a connector and an adjustment plate configured to adjust the connector in a dimension; wherein the adjustment plate is configured to move along a dimension away from the computing tile (see Fig. 2, 5a-d; [0054-0062]; computing tile 510; cabinet 202a; assembly 502; second cabinet 202b; adjustment plate546 to adjust connector 530 in a dimension away from 510).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Mendonsa further disclose:
the adjustment plate includes an adjustment pin movable along a cam (see Fig. 2; 5a-d; pin 544 move along cam 532/534).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated herein. Mendonsa further disclose:
the computing cabinet comprises a holder tube configured to provide an adjustment tool with access to the adjustment pin (see Fig. 2; [0053]; holder tube 240 to provide adjustment tool 242 access to adjustment pin 544 to allow movement of the connector).
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Mendonsa further disclose:
the computing tile is positioned on a system tray, the computing system configured such that there is no direct access to the connector when the system tray is positioned in the computing cabinet (see Fig. 5d)
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Mendonsa further disclose:
comprising a plurality of system trays position in the computing cabinet, each system tray of the plurality of system trays comprising a plurality of computing tiles (see Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Mendonsa further disclose:
comprising a plurality of computing tiles in the second computing cabinet, the plurality of computing tiles comprising the another computing tile (see Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 17 the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Mendonsa further disclose:
a holder tube within the computing cabinet and dimensioned to receive an assembly tool, the holder tube configured to provide the assembly tool with access to the connector to connect the connector to the computing tile (see Fig. 2; [0053]; in the situation where the system tray is inserted, the motor is then inserted (moved) in holder tube 240 to align connector in third dimension (z) with computing tile 510).
Regarding claim 18, Mendonsa disclose:
disconnecting a connector from a computing tile on a system tray while the system tray is positioned in a computing cabinet; after the disconnecting, moving the connector in a first dimension away from the computing tile to a pullback position; and removing the system tray from the computing cabinet while the connector is in the pullback position (see Fig. 2, 5a-d; [0054-0062]; computing tile 510a; system tray 510; see disconnection action from Fig. 5d to 5c to 5b)
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated herein. Mendonsa further disclose:
the moving the connector in the first dimension away from the computing tile to a pullback position comprises using an alignment tool to move an adjustment plate of a connector system along the first dimension, wherein the connector system comprises the connector (see Fig. 5a-d; ‘alignment tool’ 502 to move adjustment plate 546 along first dimension where connector 530 is comprised).
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated herein. Mendonsa further disclose:
the connector is connected to a second computing tile located in a second computing cabinet during the removing (see Fig. 2; second computing cabinet 202B connected thereto)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH BUKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday // 0730-1530.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571.272.7764. 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.
/kenneth bukowski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621