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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 11 cites “a fourth by”. Appropriate correction is required to “a fourth bay”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 9 is rejected because of the following: Claim 9 is depend to canceled claim 3. Therefore, it’s indefinite whether claim 9 now depends from claim 1 or claim 2. For the purpose of examination, the office will interpret claim 9 as dependent from claim 2.
Claim 19 is rejected because of the following: Claim 9 is depend to canceled claim 13. Therefore, it’s indefinite whether claim 19 now depends from claim 11 or claim 12. For the purpose of examination, the office will interpret claim 19 as dependent from claim 12.
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 1-2, 7, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grouell et al (US 5912799; “Grouell” hereinafter) in view of Wu et al (US 20120320519; “Wu” hereinafter), and further in view of Frink et al (US 20180032464; “Frink” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Grouell discloses: a memory module mounting frame, comprising:
a first bay (see annotated fig. 1 below) comprising a first lateral wall (24, fig. 1) comprising:
a guide rail (31, fig. 3) configured to receive an edge of a memory module (41, fig. 1) therein (col. 3, lines 1-4), wherein the guide rail comprises a slot (32, fig. 8) having a lateral dimension sized to fit the memory module such that the memory module slides in the slot (col. 3, lines 1-11);
an aperture (28, fig. 1) configured to allow airflow along a longitudinal axis of the memory module when the edge of the memory module is positioned in the guide rail (col. 3, lines 4-6); and
a second longitudinal wall (61) perpendicular to the first lateral wall (24) and parallel to the memory module (figs. 6-7); and
a second bay (see annotated fig. 1 below) sharing the second longitudinal wall with the first bay (fig. 1); and
wherein the first lateral wall also forms part of the second bay (fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
316
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Grouell does not explicitly teach:
the second longitudinal wall intersecting and perpendicular to the first lateral wall,
the second longitudinal wall comprising a second aperture,
the second bay sharing the second longitudinal wall with the first bay such that the second longitudinal wall separates the first bay from the second bay,
the first lateral wall further comprising a second bay aperture,
a third bay separated from the first bay by the first lateral wall; and
a fourth bay separated from the second bay by the first lateral wall, the fourth bay separated from the third bay by a third longitudinal wall.
However, Wu teaches a walls and bays arrangement comprising:
a first bay (see annotated fig. 1 below) comprising a first lateral wall (13, fig. 1),
a second longitudinal wall (see annotated fig. 1 below, comprising 17 and 15) intersecting and perpendicular to the first lateral wall (fig. 1);
a second bay (see annotated fig. 1 below) sharing the second longitudinal wall with the first bay (fig. 1) such that the second longitudinal wall separates the first bay from the second bay (fig. 1); and
wherein the first lateral wall also forms part of the second bay (fig. 1)
a third bay (see annotated fig. 1 below) separated from the first bay by the first lateral wall (fig. 1); and
a fourth bay (see annotated fig. 1 below) separated from the second bay by the first lateral wall (fig. 1), the fourth bay separated from the third bay by a third longitudinal wall (see annotated fig. 1),
a fourth wall (14, fig.1) parallel to the first lateral wall and perpendicular to the second and third longitudinal walls.
PNG
media_image2.png
474
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the layout architecture of Grouell, to meet Wu’s teaching of a first bay comprising a first lateral wall, a second longitudinal wall intersecting and perpendicular to the first lateral wall and parallel to a memory module; and a second bay sharing the second longitudinal wall with the first bay such that the second longitudinal wall separates the first bay from the second bay; and wherein the first lateral wall also forms part of the second bay, to meet the limitations of claim 1, requiring the first lateral wall comprises a guide rail configured to receive an edge of a memory module therein, wherein the guide rail comprises a slot having a lateral dimension sized to fit the memory module such that the memory module slides in the slot, a third bay separated from the first bay by the first lateral wall; and a fourth bay separated from the second bay by the first lateral wall, the fourth bay separated from the third bay by a third longitudinal wall, and a fourth wall parallel to the first lateral wall and perpendicular to the second and third longitudinal walls, in order to provide a flat arrangement of a plurality of bays. A second guide rail would be disposed in the third longitudinal wall to enable the additional bays to receive memory modules. The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Wu. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143). Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Grouell in view of Wu does not explicitly teach:
the second longitudinal wall comprising a second aperture,
the first lateral wall further comprising a second bay aperture.
However, Frink teaches:
a first bay and a second bay, among a plurality of bays (see annotated fig. 7 below).
a second longitudinal wall (234, fig. 7) comprising a second aperture (246),
PNG
media_image3.png
327
721
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a first lateral wall (228, fig. 7) comprising a plurality of bay apertures (238, fig. 7), including a second bay aperture (another instance of 238, fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the first lateral, and, second and third longitudinal walls of Grouell in view of Wu, such that the second longitudinal wall comprising a second aperture, the first lateral wall further comprising a second bay aperture, and the third longitudinal wall also comprising apertures, in order to provide an aperture for each bay, for the advantage of allowing an air flow path, and thus removing heat from the memory modules (¶[0087], [0093]).
Regarding claim 2, Grouell in view of Wu and Frink teaches the limitations of claim 1, and the combination further teaches:
further comprising: a third aperture configured to allow airflow along the longitudinal axis of the memory module (via the combination of Grouell in view of Wu and Frink, described in claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Grouell in view of Wu and Frink teaches the limitations of claim 1, and the combination further discloses:
wherein each of the bays comprises a respective guide rail (the combination of Grouell in view of Wu and Frink teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 20, Grouell discloses: an add-in card mounting frame, comprising:
a first bay (see annotated fig. 1 below) comprising a first lateral wall (24, fig. 1) comprising:
a guide rail (31, fig. 3) configured to receive an edge of an add-in card (41, fig. 1) therein (col. 3, lines 1-4), wherein the guide rail comprises a slot (32, fig. 8) having a lateral dimension sized to fit the add in card such that the add in card slides in the slot (col. 3, lines 1-11);
an aperture (28, fig. 1) configured to allow airflow along a longitudinal axis of the add in card when the edge of the add in card is positioned in the guide rail (col. 3, lines 4-6); and
a second longitudinal wall (61) and perpendicular to the first lateral wall and parallel to the memory module (figs. 6-7); and
a second bay (see annotated fig. 1 below) sharing the second longitudinal wall with the first bay (fig. 1); and
wherein the first lateral wall also forms part of the second bay (fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
316
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Grouell does not explicitly teach:
the second longitudinal wall intersecting and perpendicular to the first lateral wall,
the second longitudinal wall comprising a second aperture,
the second bay sharing the second longitudinal wall with the first bay such that the second longitudinal wall separates the first bay from the second bay,
the first lateral wall further comprising a second bay aperture,
a third bay separated from the first bay by the first lateral wall; and
a fourth bay separated from the second bay by the second longitudinal wall, the fourth bay separated from the third bay by a third longitudinal wall.
However, Wu teaches:
a first bay (see annotated fig. 1 below) comprising a first lateral wall (13, fig. 1),
a second longitudinal wall (17 and 15, see annotated fig. 1 below) intersecting and perpendicular to the first lateral wall and parallel to a memory module (fig. 1); and
a second bay (see annotated fig. 1 below) sharing the second longitudinal wall with the first bay (fig. 1) such that the second longitudinal wall separates the first bay from the second bay (fig. 1); and
wherein the first lateral wall also forms part of the second bay (fig. 1),
a third bay (see annotated fig. 1 below) separated from the first bay by the first lateral wall; and
PNG
media_image2.png
474
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a fourth bay (see annotated fig. 1 below) separated from the second bay by the second longitudinal wall, the fourth bay separated from the third bay by a third longitudinal wall (see annotated fig. 1 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the layout architecture of Grouell, to meet Wu’s teaching of a first bay comprising a first lateral wall, a second longitudinal wall intersecting and perpendicular to the first lateral wall and parallel to add-in card; and a second bay sharing the second longitudinal wall with the first bay such that the second longitudinal wall separates the first bay from the second bay; and wherein the first lateral wall also forms part of the second bay, a third bay separated from the first bay by the first lateral wall; and a fourth bay separated from the second bay by the second longitudinal wall, the fourth bay separated from the third bay by a third longitudinal wall, to meet the limitations of claim 1, requiring the first lateral wall comprises a guide rail configured to receive an edge of an add-in card therein, wherein the guide rail comprises a slot having a lateral dimension sized to fit the add-in card such that the add-in card slides in the slot, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Wu. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143). Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Grouell in view of Wu does not explicitly teach:
the second longitudinal wall comprising a second aperture,
the first lateral wall further comprising a second bay aperture.
However, Frink teaches:
a first bay and a second bay, among a plurality of bays (see annotated fig. 7 below).
a second longitudinal wall (234, fig. 7) comprising a second aperture (246),
a first lateral wall (228, fig. 7) comprising a plurality of bay apertures (238, fig. 7), including a second bay aperture (another instance of 238, fig. 7).
PNG
media_image3.png
327
721
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second longitudinal wall of Grouell in view of Wu, such that the second longitudinal wall comprises a second aperture, and the first lateral wall further comprising a second bay aperture, in order to provide an air flow path, for the advantage of removing heat from the add-in card (¶[0087], [0093]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grouell in view of Wu and Frink as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Esmaily et al (US 10763606; “Esmaily” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, Grouell in view of Wu and Frink teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the memory module mounting frame comprises an ABS material.
However, Esmaily teaches:
a memory module (10, fig. 4) mounting frame (16, fig. 4) comprises an ABS material (i. e. plastic, col. 6, lines 49-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Esmaily’s teaching into Grouell in view of Wu and Frink such that, the frame comprises an ABS material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grouell in view of Wu and Frink as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bailey et al (US 20080304228; “Bailey” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 5, Grouell in view of Wu and Frink teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the memory module mounting frame comprises a material that comprises a deflection temperature above 85° C.
However, Bailey discloses:
a frame (100, fig. 2) including vent air holes (200, fig. 2, ¶[0026]), and comprising a material (steel, ¶[0025]) that comprises a deflection temperature above 85° C ( steel is well known to have a "deflection temperature" (or more accurately, a useful structural operating temperature) significantly above 85°C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Bailey’s teaching into Grouell in view of Wu and Frink such that, the memory module mounting frame comprises a material (steel) that comprises a deflection temperature above 85° C, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grouell in view of Wu and Frink, as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Nichols et al (US 20120196477; “Nichols” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Grouell in view of Wu and Frink teaches the limitations of claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first lateral wall comprises a top aperture.
However, Nichols discloses:
a first lateral wall (322, figs. 4, 6) positioned between two bays (310, 312) of a plurality of bays (figs. 4 and 6), wherein the first lateral wall comprises a top aperture (aperture in fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the first lateral wall of Grouell in view of Wu and Frink and include the top aperture of Nichols between two opposite bays in the vertical direction, in order to provide an airflow stream (¶[0036]) between two bays, for the advantage of enhanced cooling between memory modules.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grouell in view of Wu and Frink, as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Dunfee et al (US 20240097465; “Dunfee” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 9 (as best understood), Grouell in view of Wu and Frink teaches the limitations of claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first bay is sized to fit a differential dual inline memory module (DDIMM) card.
However, Dunfee teaches:
a bay (202, figs. 4-5) sized to fit a differential dual inline memory module (DDIMM) card (404A-404C, fig. 4),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the memory module mounting frame of Grouell in view of Wu and Frink, with Dunfee’s teaching such that the first bay is sized to fit a differential dual inline memory module (DDIMM) card, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Dunfee. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frink in view of Wu.
Regarding claim 10, Frink discloses: a method of cooling a memory module, comprising:
positioning a first memory module (226) in a first bay (see annotated fig. 7 below) in a frame (232 and 234, figs. 6-7) and socket (252, fig. 8) on a substrate (225, figs. 8-9), where positioning includes sliding an edge (254, fig. 8-9, ¶[0092]) of the memory module into a first guide rail (249, ¶[0087]) of the frame;
directing an airflow through an aperture (246) in the frame across the first memory module (see at least ¶[0087]);
positioning a second memory module (see fig. 6) in a second bay (see annotated fig. 7 below) adjacent to the first bay, but separated therefrom by a wall (another instance of 234); and directing additional airflow through a second aperture (another instance of 246) fluidly connecting the first bay to the second bay (see at least ¶[0087]),
PNG
media_image4.png
378
660
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and positioning a fourth memory module in a fourth bay separated from the second bay by a third wall (another instance of 234) parallel to the wall and perpendicular to a second wall (228).
Frink does not explicitly disclose:
positioning a third memory module in a third bay separated from the first bay by a second wall perpendicular to the wall.
However, Wu teaches a walls and bays arrangement comprising:
positioning a first memory module (20, fig. 1) in a first bay (see annotated fig. 1 below, ¶[0013], [0015]);
positioning a second memory module (another instance of 20) in a second bay (see annotated fig. 1 below, ¶[0013], [0015]) adjacent to the first bay, but separated therefrom by a wall (17 and 15);
positioning a third memory module (another instance of 20) in a third bay (see annotated fig. 1 below, ¶[0013], [0015]) separated from a first bay by a second wall (13, fig. 1) perpendicular to the wall (see annotated fig. 1 below); and
PNG
media_image5.png
486
591
media_image5.png
Greyscale
positioning a fourth memory module (another instance of 20) in a fourth bay (see annotated fig. 1 below, ¶[0013], [0015]) separated from the third bay by a third wall (second instance of 17 and 15) parallel to the wall and perpendicular to the second wall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the layout architecture of Frink, to meet Wu’s teaching of positioning a first, second third and fourth memory module, in correspondence to a first, second , third and fourth bay, to meet the limitations of claim 1, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique of positioning memory modules within bays was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Wu. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143). Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claims 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grouell in view of Wu and Frink, and further in view of Halli et al (US 20220129050; “Halli” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 11, Grouell discloses: a computing device comprising:
a substrate (33, fig. 1);
a socket (34, fig. 1) configured to receive a memory module on the substrate (col. 3, lines 7-11);
a frame comprising:
a first bay (see annotated fig. 1 below) comprising a first lateral wall (24, fig. 1) comprising:
a guide rail (31, fig. 3) configured to receive an edge of a memory module (41, fig. 1) therein (col. 3, lines 1-4), wherein the guide rail comprises a slot (32, fig. 8) having a lateral dimension sized to fit the memory module such that the memory module slides in the slot (col. 3, lines 1-11);
an aperture (28, fig. 1) configured to allow airflow along a longitudinal axis of the memory module when the edge of the memory module is positioned in the guide rail (col. 3, lines 4-6); and
a second longitudinal wall (61) and perpendicular to the first lateral wall and parallel to the memory module (figs. 6-7); and
a second bay (see annotated fig. 1 below) sharing the second longitudinal wall with the first bay (fig. 1); and
wherein the first lateral wall also forms part of the second bay (fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
316
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Grouell does not explicitly teach:
the second longitudinal wall intersecting the first lateral wall,
the second longitudinal wall comprising a second aperture,
the second bay sharing the second longitudinal wall with the first bay such that the second longitudinal wall separates the first bay from the second bay,
the first lateral wall further comprising a second bay aperture.
a central processing unit positioned on the substrate,
a third bay separated from the first bay by the first lateral wall; and
a fourth bay separated from the second bay by the second longitudinal wall, the fourth bay separated from the third bay by a third longitudinal wall.
However, Wu teaches:
a first bay (see annotated fig. 1 below) comprising a first lateral wall (13, fig. 1),
a second longitudinal wall (17 and 15, see annotated fig. 1 below) intersecting and perpendicular to the first lateral wall and parallel to a memory module (fig. 1); and
a second bay (see annotated fig. 1 below) sharing the second longitudinal wall with the first bay (fig. 1) such that the second longitudinal wall separates the first bay from the second bay (fig. 1); and
wherein the first lateral wall also forms part of the second bay (fig. 1),
a third bay (see annotated fig. 1 below) separated from the first bay by the first lateral wall; and
a fourth bay (see annotated fig. 1 below) separated from the second bay by the second longitudinal wall, the fourth bay separated from the third bay by a third longitudinal wall (see annotated fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
474
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the layout architecture of Grouell, to meet Wu’s teaching of a first bay comprising a first lateral wall, a second longitudinal wall intersecting and perpendicular to the first lateral wall and parallel to add-in card; and a second bay sharing the second longitudinal wall with the first bay such that the second longitudinal wall separates the first bay from the second bay; and wherein the first lateral wall also forms part of the second bay, a third bay separated from the first bay by the first lateral wall; and a fourth bay separated from the second bay by the second longitudinal wall, the fourth bay separated from the third bay by a third longitudinal wall, to meet the limitations of claim 1, requiring the first lateral wall comprises a guide rail configured to receive an edge of an add-in card therein, wherein the guide rail comprises a slot having a lateral dimension sized to fit the add-in card such that the add-in card slides in the slot, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Wu. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143). Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Grouell in view of Wu does not explicitly teach:
the second longitudinal wall comprising a second aperture,
the first lateral wall further comprising a second bay aperture.
a central processing unit positioned on the substrate.
However, Frink teaches:
a first bay and a second bay, among a plurality of bays (see annotated fig. 7 below).
a second longitudinal wall (234, fig. 7) comprising a second aperture (246),
a first lateral wall (228, fig. 7) comprising a plurality of bay apertures (238, fig. 7), including a second bay aperture (another instance of 238, fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify
PNG
media_image3.png
327
721
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the first and second longitudinal wall of Grouell in view of Wu, such that the second longitudinal wall comprising a second aperture, and the first lateral wall further comprising a second bay aperture, in order to provide an air flow path, for the advantage of removing heat from the memory modules (¶[0087], [0093]).
Grouell in view of Wu and Frink does not explicitly teach:
a central processing unit positioned on the substrate.
However, Halli teaches:
a central processing unit (21, fig. 8) positioned on a substrate (2, fig. 8), including a socket (26, fig. 8) configured to receive a memory module (¶[0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include a central processing unit positioned on the substrate as taught by Halli, into Grouell in view of Wu and Frink, in order to exchange data between the substrate and the memory module. The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Halli. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 17, Grouell in view of Wu, Frink and Halli, teaches the limitations of claim 11, and the combination further discloses:
wherein each of the bays comprises a respective guide (the combination of Grouell in view of Wu and Frink teaches this limitation).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grouell in view of Wu, Frink and Halli, as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Esmaily et al (US 10763606; “Esmaily” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 14, Grouell in view of Wu, Frink and Halli teaches the limitations of claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the frame comprises an ABS material.
However, Esmaily teaches:
a memory module (10, fig. 4) mounting frame (16, fig. 4) comprises an ABS material (i. e. plastic, col. 6, lines 49-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Esmaily’s teaching into Grouell in view of Wu, Frink and Halli such that, the frame comprises an ABS material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grouell in view of Wu, Frink and Halli, as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Bailey et al (US 20080304228; “Bailey” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 15, Grouell in view of Wu, Frink and Halli teaches the limitations of claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the frame comprises a material that comprises a deflection temperature above 85° C.
However, Bailey discloses:
a frame (100, fig. 2) including vent air holes (200, fig. 2, ¶[0026]), and comprising a material (Steel, ¶[0025]) that comprises a deflection temperature above 85° C (steel is well known have a "deflection temperature" (or more accurately, a useful structural operating temperature) significantly above 85°C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Bailey’s teaching into Grouell in view of Wu, Frink and Halli such that, the frame comprises a material (steel) that comprises a deflection temperature above 85° C, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grouell in view of Wu, Frink and Halli as applied to claim 17, and further in view of Nichols et al (US 20120196477; “Nichols” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 18, Grouell in view of Wu, Frink and Halli teaches the limitations of claim 17, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first lateral wall comprises a top aperture.
However, Nichols discloses:
a first lateral wall (322, figs. 4, 6) positioned between two bays (310, 312) of a plurality of bays (figs. 4 and 6), wherein the first lateral wall comprises a top aperture (aperture in fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the memory module mounting frame of Grouell in view of Wu, Frink and Halli and include the top aperture of Nichols between two opposite bays in the vertical direction, in order to provide an airflow stream (¶[0036]) between two bays, for the advantage of enhanced cooling between memory modules.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grouell in view of Wu, Frink and Halli, as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Dunfee et al (US 20240097465; “Dunfee” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 19 (as best understood), Grouell in view of Wu, Frink and Halli teaches the limitations of claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first bay is sized to fit a differential dual inline memory module (DDIMM) card.
However, Dunfee teaches:
a bay (202, figs. 4-5) sized to fit a differential dual inline memory module (DDIMM) card (404A-404C, fig. 4),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the memory module mounting frame of Grouell in view of Wu, Frink and Halli, with Dunfee’s teaching such that the first bay is sized to fit a differential dual inline memory module (DDIMM) card, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Dunfee. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10-11, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the previous mapping applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see the updated mapping of the current rejection presented in this office action.
Furthermore, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both Grouell and Frink discloses apertures for air flow arrangement, while Wu discloses a bay arrangement with an intervening lateral wall. Therefore, combining the aforementioned prior arts, would have resulted in the claimed invention, since air flow cooling of electronic equipment is not a novel concept, and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KRIM whose telephone number is (703)756-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am -4:30pm.
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
/P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights