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 Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “computer hardware components” at the beginning. Later recitations of “component” in the claims are interpreted as referring to this original recitation.
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 1-6 are 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 recites “internal dimensions of a space”, then later recites “the dimensions of the space”. It is unclear if the second recitation is referring to the previously recited internal dimensions or not.
Claim 1 recites “two perpendicular dimensions of each component”, then later recites “the dimensions of the component”. It is unclear which component is being referred to or which dimensions are being referred to in the second recitation.
Claim 1 recites “the respective component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 2 recites “the respective assembly”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 3 recites “the respective one of the components”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 3 recites “the lateral axis”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 4 recites “the lateral axis”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 4 recites “a depth direction”. This has already been introduced in Claim 3 so it is unclear if this is the same or a different direction as previously recited.
Claim 5 recites “the intended position”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 6 recites “the cage”. There are a plurality of cages introduced in previous claims, so it is unclear which cage is being referred to here.
Claim 6 recites “the lateral….direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ice (US20040212973A1).
Claim 1
Ice teaches a method comprising determining internal dimensions of a space for which computer hardware components of varying sizes are to be adapted;(¶0047 teaches the enclosure (100) has a specific dimension that is “determined”.) determining at least two perpendicular dimensions of each component (¶0046 teaches the card cage is made to accommodate functional modules (components) having heights and widths.) designing a cage (400, which is a combination of 402, 404, 108 and 110) for each component (¶0048 teaches the cage assembly accommodates multiple modules. The individual card guides and rear plate portions (402, 404, 108 and 110) that interact with each module are interpreted as a cage for the component.) with reference to the dimensions of the space and the dimensions of the component having a socket (Figure 4 shows the card guides (402, 404) are sized to fit within the space and ¶0062 teaches the card guides are designed to suit the application.) within which the respective component may be retained in a fixed position to form an assembly of the cage (¶0048 teaches multiple modules are retained within the cages.) and the component having a lateral width (Single wide and double wide components are housed in the enclosure.), the lateral width of each assembly of a cage and a respective component being equal (¶0048 teaches two single wide modules (200) are housed within the enclosure. These two modules have the same width.); and fabricating the cages and assembling the cages to their respective components to form the assemblies. (¶0063 teaches the guides (402, 404) are manufactured.)
Claim 2
Ice teaches the method of Claim 1, comprising constructing each cage to have a cage power intake (108) at a same lateral location (lateral end) relative to the respective assembly as a whole and a component connection (108) that is located to engage a power intake of the component (210) when the component is retained in the fixed position (¶0104 “the connectors 210 are in mechanical and electrical communication with rear connectors 108 of the electronic equipment enclosure 100”), the cage power intake being electrically connected to the component connection in a manner enabling conveyance of power to the component through the cage power intake. (¶0104 “the connectors 210 are in mechanical and electrical communication with rear connectors 108 of the electronic equipment enclosure 100”.)
Claim 3
Ice teaches the method of Claim 2, comprising constructing the cages such that a distance in a depth direction between the cage power intake and a data connection point of the component for which the cage is designed when the component is retained in the intended position is equal for each assembly is equal for each assembly of one of the cages with the respective one of the components, wherein the depth direction is perpendicular to the lateral axis. (Figure 1A shows the connectors (108) are all located at the same distance from the cage (402, 404) portions.)
Claim 5
Ice teaches the method of Claim 3, comprising constructing each cage to have extensions that extend away from the power intake and beyond the data connection point when the component is retained in the intended position. (Several instances of Item 406 in Figure 5A represent a portion of the “cage” that extends away from the power intake (at the other end of the component connected at item 206) when the component is installed.
Claim 6
Ice teaches the method of Claim 3, comprising constructing filler blocks (500) that are removably attachable (¶0075 “removably positioned”) to the cage and which extend in a longitudinal direction from the cage when attached to the cage (Parts of the filler (500) extend in the claimed direction.), wherein the longitudinal direction is perpendicular to the lateral and the depth direction. (Figure 5A).
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.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ice (US20040212973A1).
Claim 4
Ice teaches the method of claim 3, comprising constructing each of the multiple cages.
Ice does not explicitly disclose the cages are constructed to have an equal thickness at a thickest point of the cage, wherein a thickness direction is perpendicular to the lateral axis and a depth direction.
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to choose an equal thickness because applicant has not disclosed that having the claimed thickness provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Ice’s thickness, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the thickness taught by Ice or the claimed thickness because both thicknesses would perform the same function providing a cage for the component to be secured in/on.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Ice to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 4 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Ice.
See also MPEP 2144.04, subsection IV. A. – change in size or proportion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Form.
Document
Date
Description of Relevant Subject Matter
US20200128686A1
2019-10-17
Claim 1
determining internal dimensions of a space for which computer hardware components of varying sizes are to be adapted; (¶0091 describes heights of the components is considered for the size of the overall size of the unit. ¶0088 teaches the width and depth of the components (cards) is considered when manufacturing the unit.)
determining at least two perpendicular dimensions of each component (¶0088 teaches the width and depth of the components is considered.);
designing a cage (guidance slot, 106) for each component (Figure 1B shows a component (116) in the slot (106).) with reference to the dimensions of the space and the dimensions of the component having a socket (portion of the card that interacts with connector (246)) within which the respective component may be retained in a fixed position to form an assembly of the cage (Figure 1B shows a component (116) in the slot (106).) and the component having a lateral width (¶0089), the lateral width of each assembly of a cage and a respective component being equal (¶0085 teaches the plug in units (104) can be 4HP wide.); and
fabricating the cages and assembling the cages to their respective components to form the assemblies. (Figure 1A, ¶0088 “manufacture a card cage”.)
Claim 2
constructing each cage to have a cage power intake (102) at a same lateral location (lateral end) relative to the respective assembly as a whole and a component connection (246) that is located to engage a power intake of the component when the component is retained in the fixed position (Figure 1A shows a component (104) connected with the power data connection (246) such that the connector on the component is connected to the component connection (246).), the cage power intake being electrically connected to the component connection in a manner enabling conveyance of power to the component through the cage power intake. (The components are connected to the connectors (246) to receive power.)
Claim 3
constructing the cages such that a distance in a depth direction between the cage power intake and a data connection point of the component for which the cage is designed when the component is retained in the intended position is equal for each assembly is equal for each assembly of one of the cages with the respective one of the components, wherein the depth direction is perpendicular to the lateral axis. (Figure 1A shows the connectors (246) are all located at the same distance from the cage (106) portions.)
Claim 4
Design choice
Claim 5
constructing each cage to have extensions that extend away from the power intake and beyond the data connection point when the component is retained in the intended position. (Figure 1A shows portions of the cage extend away from the power intake (102) portion.)
Claim 6
constructing filler blocks (118) that are removably attachable (the filler panel (118) is attached via fasteners (522).) to the cage and which extend in a longitudinal direction from the cage when attached to the cage (Figure 1A), wherein the longitudinal direction is perpendicular to the lateral and the depth direction. (Figure 1A)
US20040212973A1
2004-05-21
Claim 1
determining internal dimensions of a space for which computer hardware components of varying sizes are to be adapted;(¶0047 teaches the enclosure (100) has a specific dimension.)
determining at least two perpendicular dimensions of each component (¶0046 teaches the card cage is made to accommodate functional modules (components) having heights and widths.)
designing a cage (400, which is a combination of 402, 404 and 110) for each component (¶0048 teaches the cage assembly accommodates multiple modules. The individual card guides (402 and 404) that interact with each module are interpreted as a cage for the component.) with reference to the dimensions of the space and the dimensions of the component having a socket (Figure 4 shows the card guides (402, 404) are sized to fit within the space and ¶0062 teaches the card guides are designed to suit the application.) within which the respective component may be retained in a fixed position to form an assembly of the cage (¶0048 teaches multiple modules are retained within the cages.) and the component having a lateral width (Single wide and double wide components are housed in the enclosure.), the lateral width of each assembly of a cage and a respective component being equal (¶0048 teaches two single wide modules (200) are housed within the enclosure. These two modules have the same width.); and
fabricating the cages and assembling the cages to their respective components to form the assemblies. (¶0063 teaches the guides (402, 404) are manufactured.)
Claim 2
constructing each cage to have a cage power intake (108) at a same lateral location (lateral end) relative to the respective assembly as a whole and a component connection (108) that is located to engage a power intake of the component (210) when the component is retained in the fixed position (¶0104 “the connectors 210 are in mechanical and electrical communication with rear connectors 108 of the electronic equipment enclosure 100”), the cage power intake being electrically connected to the component connection in a manner enabling conveyance of power to the component through the cage power intake. (¶0104 “the connectors 210 are in mechanical and electrical communication with rear connectors 108 of the electronic equipment enclosure 100”.)
Claim 3
constructing the cages such that a distance in a depth direction between the cage power intake and a data connection point of the component for which the cage is designed when the component is retained in the intended position is equal for each assembly is equal for each assembly of one of the cages with the respective one of the components, wherein the depth direction is perpendicular to the lateral axis. (Figure 1A shows the connectors (108) are all located at the same distance from the cage (402, 404) portions.)
Claim 4
Design choice
Claim 5
constructing each cage to have extensions that extend away from the power intake and beyond the data connection point when the component is retained in the intended position. (406)
Claim 6
constructing filler blocks (500) that are removably attachable (¶0075 “removably positioned”) to the cage and which extend in a longitudinal direction from the cage when attached to the cage (Parts of the filler (500) extend in the claimed direction.), wherein the longitudinal direction is perpendicular to the lateral and the depth direction. (Figure 5A).
US20020006026A1
2001-08-30
Claim 1
determining internal dimensions of a space for which computer hardware components of varying sizes are to be adapted (¶0055 and Figure 1 shows the apparatus (10) has a determined width (A), height (H), and depth (B).)
determining at least two perpendicular dimensions of each component (¶0056 and Figure 1 show the units (16-1 through 16-5) have two dimensions that are determined. The units (16) include a printed board (43).)
designing a cage (16) for each component (Figure 6 shows the component (43) fits within the unit (16). The unit forms a cage around the component.) with reference to the dimensions of the space and the dimensions of the component having a socket within which the respective component may be retained in a fixed position to form an assembly of the cage (Figure 6 shows the board (43) fits within the interior space / socket between the side panels (60, 61).)and the component having a lateral width (Figure 1 shows the cages can have various widths.), the lateral width of each assembly of a cage and a respective component being equal (Figure 1 shows a plurality of the cages (16) having the same width.); and
fabricating the cages and assembling the cages to their respective components to form the assemblies. (¶0072-0078 and Figure 6 teach various fabrication (die casting aluminum) and assembly (screwing) steps for the cages (16).)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
