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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "420" and "426" have both been used to designate the baseboard component and the printed circuit board, respectively, wherein “420” and “426,” are pointed towards the same element. See at least Figure 4A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 7-12 and 13-18 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.
Regarding claims 1-6, the limitation “a plurality of blind mate connectors positioned along an edge of the printed circuit board… each respective component interface blind mate connector being positioned to directly mate with a blind mate connector of the baseboard component,” is unclear to the examiner. It is unclear to what constitutes the “a blind mate connector.” The specification reads as though the “plurality of blind mate connectors,” are the “a blind mate connector.” Claims 1-6 are thereby rejected and will be examined as best understood.
Regarding claims 7-12, the limitation “a baseboard component, the baseboard component comprising a printed circuit board and a plurality of blind mate connectors positioned along an edge of the printed circuit board; wherein each respective component interface blind mate connector being positioned to directly mate with a blind mate connector of the baseboard component,” is unclear to the examiner. It is unclear to what constitutes the “a blind mate connector of the baseboard component.” The claim reads as though the “plurality of blind mate connectors,” are the “a blind mate connector of the baseboard component.” Claims 7-12 are thereby rejected and will be examined as best understood.
Regarding claims 13-18, the limitation, “a baseboard component, the baseboard component comprising a printed circuit board and a plurality of blind mate connectors positioned along an edge of the printed circuit board; wherein each of the plurality of component interface components comprising a respective component interface blind mate connector, each respective component interface blind mate connector being positioned to directly mate with a blind mate connector of the baseboard component.” It is unclear to what constitutes the “a blind mate connector of the baseboard component.” The claim reads as though the “plurality of blind mate connectors,” are the “a blind mate connector of the baseboard component.” Claims 13-18 are thereby rejected and will be examined as best understood.
Regarding claims 5, 11 and 13, the limitation “card electromechanical (CEM) form factor,” is unclear to the examiner. It is unclear whether “CEM” is an industry standard and what said standard is claimed in the current invention. CEM can be electrical, mechanical, power and/or thermal. It is unclear as to which CEM the applicant is claiming. Claims 5, 11 and 13 are thereby rejection and will be examined as best understood.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation, “the PCIe interface component providing a PCIe type interface between a component of the information handling system and the baseboard component, is unclear to the examiner. It is unclear what the “interface,” and “a component,” are as claimed. Claim 3 is thereby rejected and will be examined as best understood.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, the limitation “component interface component,” is unclear to the examiner. It is unclear as to whether there are one or two components. The aforementioned limitation corresponds to the limitation “respective component interface blind mate,” and the examiner cannot ascertain which “component,” is respective to the claims “respective component interface blind mate.” Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16 are thereby rejected and will be examined as best understood.
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, 4, 7 and 10 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kelley (US20220247125).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Kelley discloses a direct connect component connection system for an information handling system, comprising:
a baseboard component (308), the baseboard component comprising a printed circuit board (Paragraph 0026 – 208) and a plurality of blind mate connectors (306) positioned along an edge of the printed circuit board (Figure 2B and 3) ; and;
a plurality of component interface components (304), each of the plurality of component interface components comprising a respective component interface blind mate connector (Figure 4), each respective component interface blind mate connector being positioned to directly mate with a blind mate connector of the baseboard component (Figure 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
454
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Kelley discloses the direct connect component connection system of claim 1, wherein: each of the plurality of component interface components (304) is associated with a respective component within an array of components (Figure 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
476
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Kelley discloses a component array system for use in an information handling system comprising (Abstract):
an array of components (Figure 3), the array of components comprising a plurality of components (Figure 3); and,
a direct connect component (Figure 3) connection system for an information handling system, comprising:
a baseboard component (308), the baseboard component comprising a printed circuit board (Paragraph 0026 – 208) and a plurality of blind mate connectors (306) positioned along an edge of the printed circuit board (Figure 2B and 3); and;
a plurality of component interface components (304), each of the plurality of component interface components comprising a respective component interface blind mate connector (Figure 4), each respective component interface blind mate connector being positioned to directly mate with a blind mate connector of the baseboard component (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Kelley discloses the component array system of claim 7, wherein: each of the plurality of component interface components (304) is associated with a respective component within an array of components (Figure 3)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelley (US20220247125) in view of Bechtolsheim et al. (hereinafter Bechtolsheim) (US20080259555).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Kelley discloses the direct connect component connection system of claim 1.
Kelley does not expressly disclose wherein: a plurality of peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) type blind mate connectors.
Bechtolsheim discloses peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) type blind mate connectors (in at least Paragraph 0044 – in its entirety)
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) type blind mate connectors of Bechtolsheim into the direct connect component connection system of Kelley.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this to increase performance and functionality of the apparatus to the network.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Kelley in view of Bechtolsheim discloses the direct connect component connection system of claim 2, wherein: each of the plurality of component interface components comprises a respective PCIe interface component, the PCIe interface component providing a PCIe type interface between a component of the information handling system and the baseboard component (Figure 3 – Bechtolsheim)
PNG
media_image3.png
472
322
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Kelley discloses the component array system of claim 7.
Kelley does not expressly disclose wherein: a plurality of peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) type blind mate connectors.
Bechtolsheim discloses peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) type blind mate connectors (in at least Paragraph 0044 – in its entirety)
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) type blind mate connectors of Bechtolsheim into the direct connect component connection system of Kelley.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this to increase performance and functionality of the apparatus to the network
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Kelley in view of Bechtolsheim discloses the component array system of claim 8, wherein: each of the plurality of component interface components comprises a respective PCIe interface component, the PCIe interface component providing a PCIe type interface between a component of the information handling system and the baseboard component (Figure 3 – Bechtolsheim)
Claim(s) 5 and 11 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelley (US20220247125) in view of Venugopal et al. (hereinafter Venugopal) (US20140353264).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Kelley discloses the direct connect component connection system of claim 4.
Kelley does not expressly disclose wherein: each of the plurality of components of the array of components is configured to correspond to a card electromechanical (CEM) form factor.
Venugopal discloses wherein: each of the plurality of components of the array of components is configured to correspond to a card electromechanical (CEM) form factor (Paragraph 0016 – System 100 may be fully compliant with interface standards, such as the Standard PCI Express .RTM. Card Electromechanical (CEM) Specification)
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Card Electromechanical (CEM) form factor of Venugopal into the direct connect component connection system of Kelley.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this as the combination would define PCIe’s higher data rates and power demands while accommodating smaller components and their respective connectors.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Kelley discloses the component array system of claim 10, wherein: each of the plurality of components of the array of components is configured to correspond to a card electromechanical (CEM) form factor.
Kelley does not expressly disclose wherein: each of the plurality of components of the array of components is configured to correspond to a card electromechanical (CEM) form factor.
Venugopal discloses wherein: each of the plurality of components of the array of components is configured to correspond to a card electromechanical (CEM) form factor (Paragraph 0016 – System 100 may be fully compliant with interface standards, such as the Standard PCI Express .RTM. Card Electromechanical (CEM) Specification)
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Card Electromechanical (CEM) form factor of Venugopal into the direct connect component connection system of Kelley.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this as the combination would define PCIe’s higher data rates and power demands while accommodating smaller components and their respective connectors.
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelley (US20220247125) in view of Nelson et al. (hereinafter Nelson) (US20190104632).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Kelley discloses the direct connect component connection system of claim 4, wherein
Kelley does not expressly disclose each of the plurality of components of the array of components comprises a graphics processing unit (GPU) module.
Nelson discloses a graphics processing unit (GPU) module (12).
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the GPU of Nelson into the direct connect component connection system of Kelley.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this because GPU modules are compact and offers flexible performance upgrades and specialized computing capabilities.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Kelley discloses the component array system of claim 11, wherein: each of the plurality of components of the array of components comprises a graphics processing unit (GPU) module.
Kelley does not expressly disclose each of the plurality of components of the array of components comprises a graphics processing unit (GPU) module.
Nelson discloses a graphics processing unit (GPU) module (12).
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the GPU of Nelson into the direct connect component connection system of Kelley.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this because GPU modules are compact and offers flexible performance upgrades and specialized computing capabilities.
Claim(s) 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adrian (US20200060033) in view of Kelley (US20220247125).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Adrian in view of Bechtolsheim discloses system comprising:
a chassis (58);
a processor (30) contained within the chassis (58);
a data bus (32) coupled to the processor (Paragraph 0022 – It will be appreciated that “internal” as used in the term “internal data bus” refers to the fact that at least a portion of the data bus is typically housed in the same housing (which serves as a Faraday cage) as the processor of the server, and should be understood to encompass a data bus that connects a processor;” and,
an array of components (Figure 1) contained within the chassis, the array of components comprising a plurality of components.
Adrian does not expressly disclose a direct connect component connection system comprising: a baseboard component, the baseboard component comprising a printed circuit board and a plurality of blind mate connectors positioned along an edge of the printed circuit board; and; a plurality of component interface components, each of the plurality of component interface components comprising a respective component interface blind mate connector, each respective component interface blind mate connector being positioned to directly mate with a blind mate connector of the baseboard component.
Kelley discloses a direct connect component connection (Figure 4A) system for directly connecting with the array of components, the direct connect component connection system comprising:
a baseboard component (308), the baseboard component comprising a printed circuit board (Paragraph 0026 – 208) and a plurality of blind mate connectors (306) positioned along an edge of the printed circuit board (Figure 2B and 3) ; and;
a plurality of component interface components (304), each of the plurality of component interface components comprising a respective component interface blind mate connector (Figure 4), each respective component interface blind mate connector being positioned to directly mate with a blind mate connector of the baseboard component (Figure 4).
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the direct connect component system of Kelley into the automated data center of Adrian.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this provide aligned mating which protects the components of the system.
PNG
media_image4.png
328
502
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Adrian in view of Kelley discloses the system of claim 13, wherein: each of the plurality of component interface components is associated with a respective component within the array of components (Figure 4A – Kelly).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adrian (US20200060033) in view of Kelley (US20220247125) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Bechtolsheim et al. (hereinafter Bechtolsheim) (US20080259555).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Adrian in view of Kelley discloses the system of claim 13, wherein: the plurality of blind mate connectors comprises a plurality of peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe)type blind mate connectors; and, each respective component interface blind mate connector comprises a PCIe type blind mate connector.
Adrian in view of Kelley does not expressly disclose wherein: a plurality of peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) type blind mate connectors.
Bechtolsheim discloses peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) type blind mate connectors (in at least Paragraph 0044 – in its entirety)
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) type blind mate connectors of Bechtolsheim into the direct connect component connection system of Adrian in view of Kelley.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this to increase performance and functionality of the apparatus to the network.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Adrian in view of Kelley further in view of Bechtolsheim discloses the system of claim 14, wherein: each of the plurality of component interface components comprises a respective PCIe interface component, the PCIe interface component providing a PCIe type interface between a component of the information handling system and the baseboard component (Figure 3 – Bechtolsheim)
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adrian (US20200060033) in view of Kelley (US20220247125) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Venugopal et al. (hereinafter Venugopal) (US20140353264).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Adrian in view of Kelley discloses the system of claim 16.
Adrian in view of Kelley does not expressly disclose wherein: each of the plurality of components of the array of components is configured to correspond to a card electromechanical (CEM) form factor.
Venugopal discloses wherein: each of the plurality of components of the array of components is configured to correspond to a card electromechanical (CEM) form factor (Paragraph 0016 – System 100 may be fully compliant with interface standards, such as the Standard PCI Express .RTM. Card Electromechanical (CEM) Specification)
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Card Electromechanical (CEM) form factor of Venugopal into the direct connect component connection system of Adrian in view of Kelley.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this as the combination would define PCIe’s higher data rates and power demands while accommodating smaller components and their respective connectors.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adrian (US20200060033) in view of Kelley (US20220247125) further in view of Venugopal et al. (hereinafter Venugopal) (US20140353264) as applied to claim above, and further in view of Nelson et al. (hereinafter Nelson) (US20190104632).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Adrian in view of Kelley further in view of Venugopal discloses the system of claim 17.
Adrian in view of Kelley further in view of Venugopal further in view of Venugopal each of the plurality of components of the array of components comprises a graphics processing unit (GPU) module.
Kelley in view of Venugopal does not expressly disclose each of the plurality of components of the array of components comprises a graphics processing unit (GPU) module.
Nelson discloses a graphics processing unit (GPU) module (12).
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the GPU of Nelson into the direct connect component connection system of Kelley in view of Venugopal.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this because GPU modules are compact and offers flexible performance upgrades and specialized computing capabilities.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US12127364.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xanthia C Cunningham whose telephone number is (571)270-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday -Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani Hayman can be reached on 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.
/XANTHIA C RELFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
21 June 2026
Prosecution Insights