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 § 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(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 20230085694 A1).
Re claim 1: Chen discloses a modular information handling system comprising:
a housing (chassis 12 of server 1 in fig 14) configured to (i.e., functional language) house components of the information handling system (see paragraph 48, lines 3-6); and
a handle assembly (unlock mechanism 10 in fig 1) comprising:
a base (socket 100 in fig 14) mechanically coupled to a sidewall of the housing; and
a handle (102 in fig 14) rotatably coupled to the base and configured to be (i.e., functional language) mechanically translated from a closed position (see fig 14 and paragraph 49) relative to the base to an open position (see fig 20 and paragraph 52) relative to the base, such that, when rotated from the closed position to the open position: the handle rotates inward towards a center of a front of the housing; and the handle enables a person to grip the handle with a vertical wrist position.
Re claim 2: Chen discloses the modular information handling system, wherein the handle further comprises a touchpoint (press portion 1040 in fig 1 and paragraph 35) extending from an interior of the handle that provides the person a mechanical advantage to cause the handle to rotate relative to the base.
Re claim 3: Chen discloses the modular information handling system, wherein the handle assembly further comprises a latching feature (engaging member 160 in figs 14-16 and paragraph 49) configured to (i.e., functional language) mechanically interact with a corresponding feature of the sidewall (engaging structure 30 in fig 16 and paragraph 50) to maintain the handle in the closed position (fig 14).
Re claim 4: Chen discloses the modular information handling system, wherein the handle assembly further comprises a disengagement feature (moving member 110 in fig 13 and paragraph 50, lines 11-27) mechanically coupled to the latching feature and configured to (i.e., functional language) enable the person to mechanically interact with the disengagement feature to mechanically disengage the latching feature from the corresponding feature.
Re claim 5: Chen discloses the modular information handling system, wherein the handle further comprises a surface (102a in fig 1) configured such that when the handle is in the closed position (see fig 14), the surface enables the person to apply a mechanical force to the surface to insert the modular information handling system into the chassis.
Re claim 6: Chen discloses a handle assembly (unlock mechanism 10 in fig 1) comprising:
a base (socket 100 in fig 14) configured to (i.e., functional language) mechanically couple to a sidewall of a housing configured to (i.e., functional language) house components of an information handling system (see paragraph 48, lines 3-6); and
a handle (102 in fig 14) rotatably coupled to the base and configured to be (i.e., functional language) mechanically translated from a closed position (see fig 14 and paragraph 49) relative to the base to an open position (see fig 20 and paragraph 52) relative to the base, such that, when rotated from the closed position to the open position: the handle rotates inward towards a center of a front of the housing; and the handle enables a person to grip the handle with a vertical wrist position.
Re claim 7: Chen discloses the handle assembly, wherein the handle further comprises a touchpoint (press portion 1040 in fig 1 and paragraph 35) extending from an interior of the handle that provides the person a mechanical advantage to cause the handle to rotate relative to the base.
Re claim 8: Chen discloses the handle assembly, further comprising a latching feature (engaging member 160 in figs 14-16 and paragraph 49) configured to (i.e., functional language) mechanically interact with a corresponding feature of the sidewall (engaging structure 30 in fig 16 and paragraph 50) to maintain the handle in the closed position (fig 14).
Re claim 9: Chen discloses the handle assembly, further comprising a disengagement feature (moving member 110 in fig 13 and paragraph 50, lines 11-27) mechanically coupled to the latching feature and configured to (i.e., functional language) enable the person to mechanically interact with the disengagement feature to mechanically disengage the latching feature from the corresponding feature.
Re claim 10: Chen discloses the handle assembly, wherein the handle further comprises a surface (102a in fig 1) configured such that when the handle is in the closed position (see fig 14), the surface enables the person to apply a mechanical force to the surface to insert the modular information handling system into the chassis.
Re method claims 11-15: The method steps recited in the claims are obviously necessitated by the device structure as taught by Chen.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the applicants’ arguments that Chen does not disclose "the handle enables a person to grip the handle with a vertical wrist position,” the examiner herein notes that Claims 1, 6 and 11 are apparatus claims. The examiner further notes that "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). The examiner notes that in the device of Chen, the user may grip the handle with a vertical wrist position if the user wishes to grip the handle in that manner. The examiner further notes that there is no structural limitation of a grip portion of the handle claimed in claims 1, 6 and 11. Therefore, the arguments remain non-persuasive and the rejection remains unchanged.
B. The applicants argue that the limitation of "the handle enables a person to grip the handle with a vertical wrist position" imposes a structural requirement on how the handle is configured and oriented when in the open position. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner herein notes that the user can grip the handle with a vertical wrist position if the user wishes to grip the handle in that manner. The examiner again notes that there is no structural limitation of a grip portion of the handle claimed in claims 1, 6 and 11.
The applicants further argue that as described in the specification of the present application, handle assemblies 106 are arranged such that as handle 202 is rotated from the closed position to the open position, such rotation is "inward" towards the center of a front of the housing, and when in a fully open position, "handle 202 may enable a user or technician to grip handle 202 with an ergonomically neutral posture (e.g. vertical wrist position) in order to pull on handle 202." The entire purpose of the present invention is to solve the ergonomic problems associated with existing sled handles that may be difficult to access in racks with adjacent components.
Chen, by contrast, is directed to an unlock mechanism that is "easy to operate and labor- saving" for disengaging a server from a rack. The examiner herein notes that the applicants are arguing about a subject matter that is not claimed.
The applicants also argue that Chen never discusses ergonomics, wrist position, or the orientation of the handle relative to the user's grip when the handle is in the open position. The Examiner has not identified any disclosure in Chen showing that the handle, when rotated to the open position, is configured to enable gripping with a vertical wrist position, and no such disclosure exists. Without such a disclosure, anticipation cannot be established. The examiner herein notes that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
The applicants claim that Chen is directed to an unlock mechanism that is "easy to operate and labor- saving" for disengaging a server from a rack, the examiner herein notes that the applicants are arguing about a subject matter that is not claimed.
Therefore, the arguments remain non-persuasive and the rejection remains unchanged.
C. The applicants argue that the examiner's mapping of Chen's "socket 100" to the claimed "base" is improper. In the present application, the "base" (element 204) is a distinct bracket-like structural component mechanically coupled to a sidewall 208 of a housing, serving as a mounting point for the handle via a plurality of axes 206. In Chen, by contrast, the "socket 100" is a complex multi-component assembly comprising a front casing 100a and a rear casing 100b that internally houses a driving member 106, a driving shaft 108, elastic members, and other moving parts. The claimed "base" is a straightforward structural coupling element-not an enclosed housing for an internal transmission mechanism. The Examiner's mapping conflates fundamentally different structures.
The examiner herein notes that the applicants are arguing about a subject matter that is not claimed.
The applicants argue that Chen's handle rotation mechanism differs structurally from the claimed handle assembly. The applicants further argue that Chen's unlock mechanism employs a complex internal transmission: the handle's rotation drives a driving shaft, which pushes an inclined surface on a driving member, which in turn linearly moves a moving member to push an engaging mechanism. The rotation of Chen's handle is merely an input to actuate a locking and unlocking system-it does not serve the purpose of presenting an ergonomic grip surface for the removal of a modular information handling system from a chassis. The applicants further argue that in the present application, by contrast, the handle rotation is the primary functional act: the handle rotates inward toward the center of the front of the housing so that the user can grip it with a vertical wrist position to physically pull the sled out of the chassis. Although the Examiner cites Chen's FIG. 20 showing two handles rotating toward each other, this rotation in Chen serves to push engaging mechanisms to disengage the server from the rack-not to present an ergonomic grip surface. The Examiner has not demonstrated that Chen's handle, in its rotated position, performs the same function in the same way as claimed.
The examiner herein notes that the applicants are arguing about a subject matter that is not claimed.
E. Applicants argue that Chen does not disclose "a touchpoint extending from an interior of the handle that provides the person a mechanical advantage to cause the handle to rotate relative to the base," as recited in Claim 2 and as similarly recited in Claims 7 and 12. The applicants further argue that the Examiner maps Chen's "press portion 1040" to the recited "touchpoint." However, this mapping is incorrect because Chen's press portion 1040 serves an entirely different structural and functional purpose than the recited touchpoint. In Chen, the press portion 1040 is a component of an operating member 104 that, when pressed, causes a restraining portion 1042 to disengage from a restraining recess 1002 of the socket 100, thereby unlocking the handle so that it may rotate. In other words, Chen's press portion 1040 is part of a locking and unlocking mechanism-it does not provide any mechanical advantage to cause rotation of the handle.
The examiner herein notes that claim 2 claims, “the handle further comprises a touchpoint extending from an interior of the handle that provides the person a mechanical advantage to cause the handle to rotate relative to the base.” In the device of Chen, the handle (102 in fig 14) comprises a touchpoint (press portion 1040 in fig 1 and paragraph 35) that extends from an interior of the handle and causes the handle to rotate relative to the base when pressed. The examiner notes that “touchpoint providing the person a mechanical advantage” is a functional language only. The examiner also notes that the structure of the touchpoint is not claimed.
Therefore, the arguments remain non-persuasive and the rejection remains unchanged.
F. The applicants argue that Chen does not disclose "a latching feature configured to mechanically interact with a corresponding feature of the sidewall to maintain the handle in the closed position," as recited in Claim 3 and as similarly recited in Claims 8 and 13. The Examiner maps Chen's "engaging member 160" to the claimed latching feature and Chen's "engaging structure 30" to the corresponding feature of the sidewall. However, this mapping is incorrect because Chen's engaging member 160 and engaging structure 30 serve a completely different purpose than the claimed latching feature. In Chen, the engaging member 160 is part of the engaging mechanism 16, which is disposed on the rail 14 of the server. The engaging member 160 engages with the engaging structure 30-a hole in the external rail 3 of the rack-to prevent the server from sliding out of the rack. This is a server-to-rack retention mechanism-it has nothing to do with maintaining a handle in a closed position.
The examiner herein notes that claim 3 claims “the handle assembly further comprises a latching feature configured to mechanically interact with a corresponding feature of the sidewall to maintain the handle in the closed position.” In the device of Chen, the handle assembly comprises a latching feature (engaging member 160 in figs 14-16 and paragraph 49) configured to mechanically interact with a corresponding feature of the sidewall (engaging structure 30 in fig 16 and paragraph 50) to maintain the handle in the closed position (fig 14). The examiner herein notes that in the device of Chen, the handle stays in the closed position (i.e., maintained in the closed position) while the latching feature is engaged with the corresponding feature of the sidewall. The examiner also notes that there is no structural limitation of the latching feature claimed that teaches locking the handle in its closed position relative to the sidewall.
The applicants further argue that in the present application, by contrast, the latching feature 212 is part of handle assembly 106 and is configured to mechanically interact with a corresponding feature of sidewall 208 to maintain handle 202 in the closed position. The user interacts with disengagement feature 210 to disengage latching feature 212 from the sidewall, thereby "unlocking" handle 202 so it can rotate. These are fundamentally different structures serving fundamentally different purposes: Chen's engaging member 160 locks a server in a rack; the claimed latching feature 212 locks a handle in its closed position relative to the sidewall. Because Chen's engaging member 160 does not maintain a handle in a closed position, Chen fails to teach this feature of Claims 3, 8, and 13.
The examiner herein notes that it is not claimed that the latching feature mechanically interacts with a corresponding feature of the sidewall to lock the handle in the closed position. The examiner further notes that in the device of Chen, the handle stays in the closed position (i.e., maintained in the closed position) while the latching feature is engaged with the corresponding feature of the sidewall.
Therefore, the arguments remain non-persuasive and the rejection remains unchanged.
G. The applicants argue that Chen does not disclose "a disengagement feature mechanically coupled to the latching feature and configured to enable the person to mechanically interact with the disengagement feature to mechanically disengage the latching feature from the corresponding feature," as recited in Claim 4 and as similarly recited in Claims 9 and 14. The Examiner maps Chen's "moving member 110" to the claimed disengagement feature. Chen's moving member 110 is not a feature that a person directly "mechanically interacts with." Rather, moving member 110 is an internal component driven by a complex transmission chain: the user rotates the handle, which rotates the driving shaft 108, which pushes the driving member 106, which in turn drives the moving member 110. In the present application, by contrast, disengagement feature 210 is a user-facing interface that the user directly interacts with to disengage latching feature 212 from the sidewall. Because Chen's moving member 110 is not a component that a person directly mechanically interacts with to disengage a latching feature, Chen fails to teach this feature of Claims 4, 9, and 14.
The examiner herein notes in the device of Chen, the handle assembly comprises a disengagement feature (moving member 110 in fig 13 and paragraph 50, lines 11-27) mechanically coupled to the latching feature and configured to (i.e., functional language) enable the person to mechanically interact with the disengagement feature to mechanically disengage the latching feature from the corresponding feature. The examiner also notes that it is not claimed that the person directly mechanically interacts with the disengagement feature to mechanically disengage the latching feature from the corresponding feature. Therefore, the applicants are arguing about a subject matter that is not claimed.
H. The applicants argue that Chen does not disclose "a surface configured such that when the handle is in the closed position, the surface enables the person to apply a mechanical force to the surface to insert the modular information handling system into the chassis," as recited in Claim 5 and as similarly recited in Claims 10 and 15.
The Examiner maps Chen's "102a" (front cover) to the claimed surface. However, Chen's front cover 102a is simply one half of the handle's housing. Chen never describes that front cover 102a serves as a push surface for inserting the server into the rack, nor is Chen's mechanism directed to insertion at all-Chen is directed to disengagement from the rack.
The examiner herein notes that claims 5, 10 and 15 are apparatus claims. The examiner also notes that a structure of the “surface” is not claimed in claims 5, 10 or 15. The examiner further notes that in the device of Chen, the person may apply a mechanical force to the front cover 102a to push/insert the modular information handling system into the chassis if the person wishes to do so.
Therefore, the arguments remain non-persuasive and the rejection remains unchanged.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nidhi Thaker whose telephone number is (571)270-3408. The examiner can normally be reached M, TH, F 10am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/NIDHI THAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
