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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “at least one memory board is vertically disposed on the adapter board” of claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 102
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) 1-5 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (2014/0133085).
Regarding Claim 1: Lin teaches a server, comprising: at least one mainboard (12); at least one adapter board (16); at least one processor (162); and at least one memory board (18), wherein both the adapter board and the processor are disposed on the mainboard (figs. 2a-2c), the adapter board is disposed vertically or obliquely relative to the mainboard (figs. 2a-2c), the memory board is electrically connected to the adapter board (figs. 2a-2c, through connector 122), the adapter board is electrically connected to the mainboard (figs. 2a-2c, through connector 122), and the memory board extends from the adapter board toward an outer side of the adapter board (figs. 2a-2c).
Regarding Claim 2: Lin teaches wherein the at least one memory board is vertically disposed on the adapter board (figs. 2a-2c).
Regarding Claim 3: Lin teaches wherein at least two memory boards are successively spaced apart in a height direction of the adapter board (figs. 2a-2c).
Regarding Claim 4: Lin teaches wherein the at least one processor is located at a middle position on the mainboard (figs. 2a-2c, shows 162 towards the middle); and the adapter board is located at a position that is on the mainboard and that is near the processor (figs. 2a-2c), and the memory board is located on a side that is of the adapter board and that is away from the processor (figs. 2a-2c, memory board is on top and processor is on bottom); or the adapter board is located at an edge position on the mainboard (figs. 2a-2c), and the memory board is located on a side that is of the adapter board and that faces the processor (figs. 2a-2c).
Regarding Claim 5: Lin teaches wherein the at least one adapter boards comprises at least two adapter boards (figs. 2a-2c), and the at least two adapter boards are located on different sides of the processor (figs. 2a-2c).
Regarding Claim 10: Lin teaches a cabinet server, comprising a cabinet body (10) and a plurality of servers that are mounted in the cabinet body (figs. 2a-2c), wherein each of the plurality of servers comprise: at least one mainboard (12); at least one adapter board (16); at least one processor (162); and at least one memory board (18), wherein both the adapter board and the processor are disposed on the mainboard (figs. 2a-2c), the adapter board is disposed vertically or obliquely relative to the mainboard (figs. 2a-2c), the memory board is electrically connected to the adapter board (figs. 2a-2c, through connector 122), the adapter board is electrically connected to the mainboard (figs. 2a-2c, through connector 122), and the memory board extends from the adapter board toward an outer side of the adapter board (figs. 2a-2c).
Regarding Claim 11: Lin teaches wherein the at least one memory board is vertically disposed on the adapter board (figs. 2a-2c).
Regarding Claim 12: Lin teaches wherein at least two memory boards are successively spaced apart in a height direction of the adapter board (figs. 2a-2c).
Regarding Claim 13: Lin teaches wherein the at least one processor is located at a middle position on the mainboard (figs. 2a-2c, shows 162 towards the middle); and the adapter board is located at a position that is on the mainboard and that is near the processor (figs. 2a-2c), and the memory board is located on a side that is of the adapter board and that is away from the processor (figs. 2a-2c, memory board is on top and processor is on bottom); or the adapter board is located at an edge position on the mainboard (figs. 2a-2c), and the memory board is located on a side that is of the adapter board and that faces the processor (figs. 2a-2c).
Regarding Claim 14: Lin teaches wherein the at least one adapter boards comprises at least two adapter boards (figs. 2a-2c), and the at least two adapter boards are located on different sides of the processor (figs. 2a-2c).
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.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (2014/0133085).
Regarding Claim 6: Lin lacks a specific teaching of wherein the at least one mainboard comprises at least two mainboards that are disposed in parallel, and the at least one processor comprises at least two processors that are each disposed on each of opposite surfaces of the at least two mainboards.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Lin by having wherein the at least one mainboard comprises at least two mainboards that are disposed in parallel, and the at least one processor comprises at least two processors that are each disposed on each of opposite surfaces of the at least two mainboards in order to allow for improved and more direct connection between the memory modules which in turn increases the overall memory speed of the apparatus and decreasing any lag time for the user wherein this would be accomplished merely by duplicating the already disclosed elements of the prior art wherein it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 7: Lin lacks a specific teaching of wherein the at least one mainboard comprises a first mainboard and a second mainboard, and the adapter board extends from the first mainboard to the second mainboard.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Lin by having wherein the at least one mainboard comprises a first mainboard and a second mainboard, and the adapter board extends from the first mainboard to the second mainboard in order to allow for improved and more direct connection between the memory modules which in turn increases the overall memory speed of the apparatus and decreasing any lag time for the user wherein this would be accomplished merely by duplicating the already disclosed elements of the prior art wherein it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 8: Lin teaches wherein the server further comprises at least one connector (fig. 2A), one end of the first adapter board is connected to the first mainboard (fig. 2A), one end of the second adapter board is connected to the second mainboard (fig. 2A), but lacks a specific teaching of the at least one mainboard comprises a first mainboard and a second mainboard, the at least one adapter board comprises a first adapter board and a second adapter board, and another end of the first adapter board is connected to another end of the second adapter board by using the connector.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Lin by having the at least one mainboard comprises a first mainboard and a second mainboard, the at least one adapter board comprises a first adapter board and a second adapter board, and another end of the first adapter board is connected to another end of the second adapter board by using the connector in order to allow for improved and more direct connection between the memory modules which in turn increases the overall memory speed of the apparatus and decreasing any lag time for the user wherein this would be accomplished merely by duplicating the already disclosed elements of the prior art wherein it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 15: Lin lacks a specific teaching of wherein the at least one mainboard comprises at least two mainboards that are disposed in parallel, and the at least one processor comprises at least two processors that are each disposed on each of opposite surfaces of the at least two mainboards.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Lin by having wherein the at least one mainboard comprises at least two mainboards that are disposed in parallel, and the at least one processor comprises at least two processors that are each disposed on each of opposite surfaces of the at least two mainboards in order to allow for improved and more direct connection between the memory modules which in turn increases the overall memory speed of the apparatus and decreasing any lag time for the user wherein this would be accomplished merely by duplicating the already disclosed elements of the prior art wherein it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 16: Lin lacks a specific teaching of wherein the at least one mainboard comprises a first mainboard and a second mainboard, and the adapter board extends from the first mainboard to the second mainboard.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Lin by having wherein the at least one mainboard comprises a first mainboard and a second mainboard, and the adapter board extends from the first mainboard to the second mainboard in order to allow for improved and more direct connection between the memory modules which in turn increases the overall memory speed of the apparatus and decreasing any lag time for the user wherein this would be accomplished merely by duplicating the already disclosed elements of the prior art wherein it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 17: Lin teaches wherein the server further comprises at least one connector (fig. 2A), one end of the first adapter board is connected to the first mainboard (fig. 2A), one end of the second adapter board is connected to the second mainboard (fig. 2A), but lacks a specific teaching of the at least one mainboard comprises a first mainboard and a second mainboard, the at least one adapter board comprises a first adapter board and a second adapter board, and another end of the first adapter board is connected to another end of the second adapter board by using the connector.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Lin by having the at least one mainboard comprises a first mainboard and a second mainboard, the at least one adapter board comprises a first adapter board and a second adapter board, and another end of the first adapter board is connected to another end of the second adapter board by using the connector in order to allow for improved and more direct connection between the memory modules which in turn increases the overall memory speed of the apparatus and decreasing any lag time for the user wherein this would be accomplished merely by duplicating the already disclosed elements of the prior art wherein it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (2014/0133085) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Steinmacher-Burow (2016/0026600).
Regarding Claim 9: Lin lacks a specific teaching of wherein the connector is one of a flexible circuit board, a flat cable, or a cable.
Steinmacher-Burow teaches wherein the connector is one of a flexible circuit board, a flat cable, or a cable (paragraph [0038].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Lin by having the connector is one of a flexible circuit board, a flat cable, or a cable as disclosed by Steinmacher-Burow in order to allow for improved and more direct connection between the memory modules which in turn increases the overall memory speed of the apparatus and decreasing any lag time for the user.
Regarding Claim 18: Lin lacks a specific teaching of wherein the connector is one of a flexible circuit board, a flat cable, or a cable.
Steinmacher-Burow teaches wherein the connector is one of a flexible circuit board, a flat cable, or a cable (paragraph [0038].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Lin by having the connector is one of a flexible circuit board, a flat cable, or a cable as disclosed by Steinmacher-Burow in order to allow for improved and more direct connection between the memory modules which in turn increases the overall memory speed of the apparatus and decreasing any lag time for the user.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (2014/0133085) in further view of Steinmacher-Burow (2016/0026600).
Regarding Claim 19: Lin teaches each of the servers comprise: at least one mainboard (12); at least one adapter board (16); at least one processor (162); and at least one memory board (18), wherein both the adapter board and the processor are disposed on the mainboard (figs. 2a-2c), the adapter board is disposed vertically or obliquely relative to the mainboard (figs. 2a-2c), the memory board is electrically connected to the adapter board (figs. 2a-2c, through connector 122), the adapter board is electrically connected to the mainboard (figs. 2a-2c, through connector 122), and the memory board extends from the adapter board toward an outer side of the adapter board (figs. 2a-2c), but lacks a specific teaching of a data center comprising one or more cabinet servers, each of the one or more cabinet servers comprising a cabinet body and a plurality of servers that are mounted in the cabinet body.
Steinmacher-Burow teaches a data center comprising one or more cabinet servers, each of the one or more cabinet servers comprising a cabinet body and a plurality of servers that are mounted in the cabinet body (paragreaph [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Lin by having a data center comprising one or more cabinet servers, each of the one or more cabinet servers comprising a cabinet body and a plurality of servers that are mounted in the cabinet body as disclosed by Steinmacher-Burow in order to allow for improved and more direct connection between the memory modules which in turn increases the overall memory speed of the apparatus and decreasing any lag time for the user.
Regarding Claim 20: Lin teaches wherein the at least one memory board is vertically disposed on the adapter board (figs. 2a-2c).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in the notice of references PTO-892 but not relied upon above are related to the current application as they disclose multiple configurations of memory boards including adapters and connectors with in server systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY MICHAEL HAUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-9087. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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.
/ANTHONY M HAUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights