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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This correspondence is in response to Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed on
07/16/2026. Claims 1, 7-9, 14 and 20 have been amended. No claims have been canceled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
(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) 1-2, 4-5, 8-11, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20090179116 A1 St. Louis (St. Louis).
PNG
media_image1.png
788
947
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
451
1088
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
716
947
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, St. Louis discloses A mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) for attaching to a pair of first and second network rack rails (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) and for supporting a connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above), said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) comprising: a generally flat plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) having a front face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) and a rear face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above), left and right side edges (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above), a top edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) and a bottom edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above); at least one first fastening feature (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) formed on said plate proximate said left side edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) for attaching said left side edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) to the first network rack rail (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above); at least one second fastening feature (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) formed on said plate proximate said right side edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) for attaching said right side edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) to the second network rack rail (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above); a window (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) formed within said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) for supporting the connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) therein, said window (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) being defined within first and second longitudinal edges (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) and first and second lateral edges (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) formed within said front face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above); a first ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) extending away from said rear face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) of said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above); a second ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) extending away from said rear face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) of said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above); a first locking tab (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) extending away from said first ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) for attaching the connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) within said window (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above); and a second locking tab (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) extending away from said second ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) for attaching te the connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) within said window (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 2, St. Louis discloses wherein said first ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) extends away from said first lateral edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) of said window at an angle of about ninety degrees (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above); and wherein said second ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) extends away from said second lateral edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) of said window (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) at an angle of about ninety degrees (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 4, St. Louis discloses wherein said first locking tab (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) is integrally formed with said first ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) and a third bend (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) at a juncture (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) of said first ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) and said first locking tab (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) causes said first locking tab (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) to extend at an angle of about ninety degrees (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) away from said first ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above); and wherein said second locking tab is (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) integrally formed with said second ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) and a fourth bend (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) at a juncture (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) of said second ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) and said second locking tab (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) causes said second locking tab (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) to extend at an angle of about ninety degrees (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) away from said second ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 5, St. Louis discloses wherein said first locking tab (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) includes a first through hole (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) therein for receiving a first element (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) for attaching said first locking tab (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) to the connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above); and wherein said second locking tab (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) includes a second through hole (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) therein for receiving a second element (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) for attaching said second locking tab (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) to the connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 8, St. Louis discloses wherein said at least one first fastening feature (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) is a first opening (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) formed through said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) proximate said left side edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) for accepting a first fastener (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) therethrough; and wherein said at least one second fastening feature (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) is a second opening (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) formed through said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) proximate said right side edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) for accepting a second fastener (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) therethrough.
Regarding claim 9, St. Louis discloses wherein said at least one first fastening feature (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) includes first and second openings (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) formed through said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) proximate said left side edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) for accepting first and third fasteners (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above), respectively; and wherein said at least one second fastening feature (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) includes third and fourth openings (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) formed through said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) proximate said right side edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) for accepting second and fourth fasteners (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above), respectively.
Regarding claim 10, St. Louis discloses wherein said window (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) is offset to be closer to said right side edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) of said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, St. Louis discloses wherein said window (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) is equally distanced between said top and bottom edges (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) of said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above); and further comprising: a first labeling surface (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) located above said window (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) on said front face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) of said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above); and a second labeling surface (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) located below said window (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) on said front face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) of said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 14, St. Louis discloses A combination of a connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) and a mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) for attachment to a pair of first and second network rack rails (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above), said combination comprising: a generally flat plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) having a front face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) and a rear face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above), left and right side edges (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above), a top edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) and a bottom edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above); at least one first fastening feature (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) formed on said plate proximate said left side edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) for attaching said left side edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) to the first network rack rail (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above); at least one second fastening (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) feature formed on said plate proximate said right side edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) for attaching said right side edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) to the second network rack rail (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above); a window (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) formed within said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above), said window (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) being defined within first and second longitudinal edges (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) and first and second lateral edges (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) formed within said front face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above); a connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) located within said window (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) having a rear portion (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) of said connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) extending away from said rear face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) of said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) to a first degree (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above), and a front portion (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) of said connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) being approximately flush with said front face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) of said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) or extending away from said front face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) of said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) to a second degree less than said first degree; a first ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) extending away from said rear face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) of said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above); a second ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) extending away from said rear face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) of said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above); a first locking tab (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) extending away from said first ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) attached to said connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) within said window (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above); and a second locking tab (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) extending away from said second ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) attached to said connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) within said window (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 20, St. Louis discloses A combination of first and second network rail racks (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above), a connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) and a mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) attached to said first and second network rack rails (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above), said combination comprising: a first network rack rail (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above); a second network rack rail (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above); a generally flat plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) having a front face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) and a rear face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above), left and right side edges (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above), a top edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) and a bottom edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above); at least one first fastening feature (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) formed on said plate proximate said left side edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) attaching said left side edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) to said first network rack rail (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above); at least one second fastening feature (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) formed on said plate proximate said right side edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) attaching said right side edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) to said second network rack rail (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above); a window (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) formed within said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above), said window (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) being defined within first and second longitudinal edges (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) and first and second lateral edges (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) formed within said front face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above); a connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) located within said window (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) having a rear portion (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) of said connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) extending away from said rear face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) of said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) to a first degree (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above), and a front portion (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) of said connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) being approximately flush with said front face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) of said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) or extending away from said front face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) of said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) to a second degree less than said first degree; a first ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) extending away from said rear face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) of said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above); a second ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) extending away from said rear face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) of said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above); a first locking tab (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) extending away from said first ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) attached to said connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) within said window (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above); and a second locking tab (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) extending away from said second ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) for attached to said connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) within said window (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above).
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.
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) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090179116 A1 St. Louis (St. Louis).
Regarding claim 3, St. Louis discloses wherein said first ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) is . . . with said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) and a first bend (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) at a juncture (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) of said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) and said first ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) causes said first ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) to extend at said angle of about ninety degrees (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) away from said rear face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) of said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above); and wherein said second ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) is . . . with said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) and a second bend (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) at a juncture (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) of said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) and said second ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) causes said second ear (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) to extend at said angle of about ninety degrees (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) away from said rear face (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) of said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above).
St. Louis fails to disclose that said first and second ear is integrally formed with said mounting plate. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify St. Louis such that said first and second ears are integrally formed with said mounting plate, rather than being separately formed and subsequently attached via pins and notches. The courts have held that forming in one piece and article that has formerly been formed of two or more parts joined together involves only routine skill in the art and is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art absent a showing of unexpected results (See MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)). Such a modification would have amounted to nothing more than the predictable application of a known technique to a known device, and would not produce any unexpected results. Moreover, doing so would eliminate the pins and notches otherwise required to join the ears to the mounting plate, thereby reducing the number of components, simplifying assembly, and reducing the likelihood of the ears becoming detached from the mounting plate during use.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090179116 A1 St. Louis (St. Louis) in view of US 10932387 B2 Goergan (Goergan).
PNG
media_image4.png
254
487
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
522
539
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, St. Louis discloses first through hole (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) and second through hole (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above).
St. Louis fails to disclose a first threaded insert attached within or to said first through hole, wherein said first element is a threaded bolt or screw to engage said first threaded insert; and a second threaded insert attached within or to said second through hole, wherein said second element is a threaded bolt or screw to engage said second threaded insert. However, Goergan teaches a first threaded insert, i.e., internal threads formed within a first hole (Annotated Goergan Fig. 1 above) attached within or to said first through hole, wherein said first element (Annotated Goergan Fig. 1 above) is a threaded bolt or screw (Annotated Goergan Fig. 3 above) to engage said first threaded insert (Annotated Goergan Fig. 1 above); and a second threaded insert, i.e., internal threads formed within a second through hole (Annotated Goergan Fig. 1 above), wherein said second element (Annotated Goergan Fig. 1 above) is a threaded bolt or screw (Annotated Goergan Fig. 3 above) to engage said second threaded insert (Annotated Goergan Fig. 1 above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify St. Louis such that the first through hole is internally threaded to define a first threaded insert, and the second through hole is internally threaded to define a second threaded insert, wherein the first and second elements are threaded bolts or screws configured to engage the respective threaded inserts, as taught by Goergan. Because this modification is accomplished by threading the existing first and second through holes rather than by adding a separate, physically distinct component to the locking tab, the modification does not add material to, or alter the external dimensions of, the locking tab, and therefore do not interfere with the locking tab’s engagement or coupling with the network rack rail. Such a modification would not produce any unexpected results, as it amounts to the simple substitution of one known fastening feature arrangement for another to achieve a predictable result. Moreover, doing so would provide a secure and reusable threaded connection point within the through holes, allowing the first and second elements to be repeatably fastened and unfastened without stripping or degrading the material surrounding the through holes, thereby facilitating ease of assembly, disassembly, and maintenance.
Regarding claim 15, St. Louis discloses said first locking tab (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) includes a first through hole (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) therein and . . . , and wherein said second locking tab (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) includes a second through hole (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above) therein and . . . , and further comprising: . . . said connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) or a fixture of said connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) . . . and attach said connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) . . . ; and . . . said connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) or a fixture of said connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) . . .
St. Louis fails to disclose a first threaded insert attached within or to said first through hole; a second threaded insert attached within or to said second through hole; a first threaded bolt or screw passing through a portion of said connection module or a fixture of said connection module to engage said first threaded insert and attach said connection module to said first locking tab; a second threaded bolt or screw passing through a portion of said connection module or a fixture of said connection module to engage said second threaded insert and attach said connection module to said second locking tab. However, Goergan teaches a first threaded insert (Annotated Goergan Fig. 1); a second threaded insert (Annotated Goergan Fig. 1); a first threaded bolt or screw (Annotated Goergan Fig. 3) passing through a portion of said connection module or a fixture of said connection module to engage said first threaded insert (Annotated Goergan Fig. 1); a second threaded bolt or screw (Annotated Goergan Fig. 3) passing through a portion of said connection module or a fixture of said connection module to engage said second threaded insert (Annotated Goergan Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify St. Louis by incorporating a first threaded insert attached within or to the first through hole, a second threaded insert attached within or to the second through hole, a first threaded bolt or screw passing through a portion of the connection module or a fixture thereof to engage the first threaded insert and attach the connection module to the first locking tab, and a second threaded bolt or screw passing through a portion of the connection module or a fixture thereof to engage the second threaded insert and attach the connection module to the second locking tab, as taught by Goergan. Such a modification would not produce any unexpected results, as it amounts to the simple substitution of one know fastening arrangement for another to achieve a predictable result. Moreover, doing so would provide a secure and reusable threaded connection between the connection module and the first and second locking tabs, allowing the connection module to be repeatedly fastened and unfastened without stripping or degrading the material surrounding the through holes, thereby facilitating ease of assembly, disassembly, and maintenance of the connection module relative to the locking tabs.
Claim(s) 7, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090179116 A1 St. Louis (St. Louis) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
PNG
media_image6.png
563
893
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
432
896
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, St. Louis discloses . . . said first left side edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig 1 above) of said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig 1 above) and said second right side edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig 1 above) of said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig 1 above).
St. Louis fails to disclose a distance between . . . is approximately nineteen to twenty-one inches. However, Applicants admitted prior art teaches “typical network racks include first and second network rack rails which are spaced nineteen to twenty-one inches apart” (See Applicant’s Spec. Para [003] Ln. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify St. Louis such that the distance between the first left side edge and the second left side edge of the mounting plate is approximately nineteen-twenty-one inches, as taught by Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art, which states that “typical network racks include first and second network rack rails which are spaced nineteen to twenty-one inches apart” (See Applicant’s Spec. Para [003] Ln. 2-3). Such a modification amounts to no more than sizing the mounting plate of St. Louis to conform to a known, standard rack rail spacing in the art, and would not produce any unexpected results. Moreover, doing so would allow the mounting plate of St. Louis to be compatible with and properly mounted within standard network racks and enclosures commonly used in the installation and interoperability with existing rack-mounted equipment.
Regarding claim 16, St. Louis discloses wherein said connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 3 above) includes: . . . is secured to both of said first and second locking tabs (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 2 above).
St. Louis fails to disclose a DIN rail with first and second flanges along its longitudinal edges; a plurality of connection units, each connection unit includes a first push-in receptacle in a front face of said connection unit to receive an end of an electrical wire of a first set, and includes a second push-in receptacle in said front face of said connection unit to receive an end of an electrical wire of a second set, each connection unit includes first and second guide channels formed on a rear face of said connection unit; said first and second flanges of said DIN rail are slid into said first and second guide channels of said plurality of connection units to formed a stacked array of connection units on said DIN rail, and wherein said DIN rail is secured to both of said first and second locking tabs. However, Applicant’s Admitted prior art teaches a DIN rail (Annotated Applicant’s admitted prior art above) with first and second flanges (Annotated Applicant’s admitted prior art above) along its longitudinal edges (Annotated Applicant’s admitted prior art above); a plurality of connection units (Annotated Applicant’s admitted prior art above), each connection unit (Annotated Applicant’s admitted prior art above) includes a first push-in receptacle (Annotated Applicant’s admitted prior art above) in a front face (Annotated Applicant’s admitted prior art above) of said connection unit (Annotated Applicant’s admitted prior art above) to receive an end of an electrical wire (Annotated Applicant’s admitted prior art above) of a first set, and includes a second push-in receptacle (Annotated Applicant’s admitted prior art above) in said front face (Annotated Applicant’s admitted prior art above) of said connection unit (Annotated Applicant’s admitted prior art above) to receive an end of an electrical wire (Annotated Applicant’s admitted prior art above) of a second set, each connection unit (Annotated Applicant’s admitted prior art above) includes first and second guide channels (Annotated Applicant’s admitted prior art above) formed on a rear face (Annotated Applicant’s admitted prior art above) of said connection unit (Annotated Applicant’s admitted prior art above); said first and second flanges (Annotated Applicant’s admitted prior art above) of said DIN rail (Annotated Applicant’s admitted prior art above) are slid into said first and second guide channels (Annotated Applicant’s admitted prior art above) of said plurality of connection units (Annotated Applicant’s admitted prior art above) to formed a stacked array of connection units (Annotated Applicant’s admitted prior art above) on said DIN rail (Annotated Applicant’s admitted prior art above), and wherein said DIN rail (Annotated Applicant’s admitted prior art above) is secured to both of said first and second locking tabs.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify St. Louis by substituting a DIN rail having first and second flanges along its longitudinal edges, a plurality of connection units each having a first push-in receptacle and a second push-in receptacle in a front face to receive ends of electrical wires of a first and second set, respectively, and first and second guide channels formed on a rear face of each connection unit, wherein the first and second flanges of the DIN rail are slid into the first and second guide channels of the plurality of connection units to form a stacked array of connection units on the DIN rail, as taught by Applicant’s admitted prior art, for the connection module of St. Louis. Such a modification amounts to the simple substitution of one known DIN-rail-mounted connection unit arrangement for another to achieve the predictable result of securely mounting a stacked array of electrical connection units to St. Louis’s locking tabs, and would not produce any unexpected results. Moreover, doing so would allow for a modular expandable arrangement of connection units that can be readily added, removed, or repositioned along the DIN rail, thereby facilitating ease of installation, wiring, and maintenance of the electrical connections.
Regarding claim 17, St. Louis discloses . . . is formed of steel (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) . . .
St. Louis fails to discloses wherein said DIN rail . . . and said first and second flanges are considered off-set flanges because said first and second flanges are not co-planar to a mid- section of said DIN rail. However, Applicant’s admitted prior art teaches said DIN rail (Annotated Applicants admitted prior art above) . . . and said first and second flanges (Annotated Applicants admitted prior art above) are considered off-set flanges because said first and second flanges (Annotated Applicants admitted prior art above) are not co-planar to a mid- section (Annotated Applicants admitted prior art above) of said DIN rail (Annotated Applicants admitted prior art above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify St. Louis by configuring the DIN rail such that the first and second flanges are off-set flanges, i.e., not coplanar to a mid-section of the DIN rail, as taught by Applicant’s Admitted prior art. Such a modification amounts to the simple substitution of one known DIN rail flange configuration for another to achieve a predictable result, and thus would not produce any unexpected results. Moreover, doing so would allow the flanges to be positioned at differing depths relative to the relative to the mid-section of the DIN rail, thereby accommodating connection units having correspondingly offset guide channels and improving the stability and retention of the connection units when slid onto the DIN rail.
Regarding claim 18, St. Louis fails to disclose jumper slots, test ports and/or labels provided in or on said front face of each connection unit between said first and second push-in receptacles; and first and second end caps, each having first and second guide channels formed on a rear face thereof, wherein said first and second flanges of said DIN rail are also slid into said first and second guide channels of said first and second end caps. However, Applicant’s Admitted prior art teaches disclose jumper slots, test ports and/or labels (Annotated Applicant’s Admitted Prior art above) provided in or on said front face (Annotated Applicant’s Admitted Prior art above) of each connection unit (Annotated Applicant’s Admitted Prior art above) between said first and second push-in receptacles (Annotated Applicant’s Admitted Prior art above); and first and second end caps (Annotated Applicant’s Admitted Prior art above), each having first and second guide channels (Annotated Applicant’s Admitted Prior art above) formed on a rear face (Annotated Applicant’s Admitted Prior art above) thereof, wherein said first and second flanges (Annotated Applicant’s Admitted Prior art above) of said DIN rail (Annotated Applicant’s Admitted Prior art above) are also slid into said first and second guide channels (Annotated Applicant’s Admitted Prior art above) of said first and second end caps (Annotated Applicant’s Admitted Prior art above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify St. Louis by incorporating jumper slots, test ports, and/or labels provided in or on the front face of each connection unit between the first and second push-in receptacles , and first and second end caps each having first and second guide channels formed on the rear face thereof, wherein the first and second flanges of the DIN rail are also slid into the first and second guide channels of the first and second end caps, as taught by Applicant’s Admitted prior art. Such a modification would not produce any unexpected results, as it amounts to the incorporation of known features for their intended purpose to achieve a predictable result. Moreover, the jumper slots, test ports, and/or labels would allow a technician to more easily test, jumper, and identify individual electrical connection, while the first and second end caps would secure the outermost connection units in the stacked array against the DIN rail, thereby preventing unwanted lateral movement or disengagement of the stacked connection units from the DIN rail.
Claim 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090179116 A1 St. Louis (St. Louis) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and in further view of US 7889962 B2 Nair (Nair).
PNG
media_image8.png
606
952
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
701
857
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, St. Louis discloses said first longitudinal edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) of said window (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) formed in said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above), said second longitudinal edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) of said window (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) formed in said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above), and said connection module (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above).
St. Louis fails to disclose first and second notches formed within said first longitudinal edge of said window formed in said mounting plate; third and fourth notches formed within said second longitudinal edge of said window formed in said mounting plate; first and second blades formed along top surfaces of said first and second end caps, which sit in said first and second notches, when said connection module resides within said window; and third and fourth blades formed along bottom surfaces of said first and second end caps, which sit in said third and fourth notches, when said connection module resides within said window.
However, Nair teaches first and second notches (Annotated Nair Fig. 1 above) formed within said first longitudinal edge of said window formed in said mounting plate; third and fourth notches (Annotated Nair Fig. 1 above) formed within said second longitudinal edge of said window formed in said mounting plate.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify St. Louis by incorporating first and second notches formed within the first longitudinal edge of the window form in the mounting plate, and third and fourth notches formed within the second longitudinal edge of the window formed in the mounting plate, as taught by Nair. Such a modification amounts to the simple substitution of the one known mounting plate window/notch configuration for another to achieve a predictable result, and would not produce any unexpected results. Moreover, doing so would provide dedicated seating locations within the window for corresponding structure on the connection module, thereby facilitating proper alignment and secure position of the connection module within the window of the mounting plate.
However, Applicant’s Admitted Prior art teaches first and second blades (Annotated Applicant’s Admitted Prior art above) formed along top surfaces of said first and second end caps (Annotated Applicant’s Admitted Prior art above), third and fourth blades (Annotated Applicant’s Admitted Prior art above) formed along bottom surfaces of said first and second end caps (Annotated Applicant’s Admitted Prior art above)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify St. Louis, as modified by Nair, by incorporating first and second blades formed along top surfaces of the first and second end caps, which sit in the first and second notches when the connection module resides within the window, and third and fourth blades formed along bottom surfaces of the first and second end caps, which sit in the third and fourth notches when the connection module resides within the window, as taught by Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art. Such a modification would not produce any unexpected results, as known blade-and-notch retention feature for its intended purpose to achieve a predictable result. Moreover, doing so would secure the connection module against the mounting plate by engaging the blades of the end caps within the corresponding notches of the window, thereby preventing unwanted lateral or vertical movement of the connection module relative to the mounting plate during installation and use.
Claim(s) 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090179116 A1 St. Louis (St. Louis) in view of US 7889962 B2 Nair (Nair).
Regarding claim 12, St. Louis discloses said mounting plate (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above), said window (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above), said first longitudinal edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) and said first lateral edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above), said second longitudinal edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above) and said first lateral edge (Annotated St. Louis Fig. 1 above).
St. Louis fails to disclose first and second notches formed through said mounting plate along said first longitudinal edge of said window; and third and fourth notches formed through said mounting plate along said second longitudinal edge of said window, wherein said first notch is located adjacent to a junction between said first longitudinal edge and said first lateral edge of said window, and wherein said third notch is located adjacent to a junction between said first longitudinal edge and said second lateral edge of said window, and wherein said third notch is located adjacent to a junction between said second longitudinal edge and said first lateral edge of said window, and wherein said fourth notch is located adjacent to a junction between said second longitudinal edge and said second lateral edge of said window. However, Nair teaches first and second notches (Annotated Nair Fig. 1 above) formed through said mounting plate along said first longitudinal edge of said window; and third and fourth notches (Annotated Nair Fig. 2 above) formed through said mounting plate along said second longitudinal edge of said window, wherein said first notch (Annotated Nair Fig. 1 above) is located adjacent to a junction (Annotated Nair Fig. 1 above) between said first longitudinal edge and said first lateral edge of said window, and wherein said third notch (Annotated Nair Fig. 2 above) is located adjacent to a junction (Annotated Nair Fig. 2 above) between said first longitudinal edge and said second lateral edge of said window, and wherein said third notch (Annotated Nair Fig. 2 above) is located adjacent to a junction between said second longitudinal edge and said first lateral edge of said window, and wherein said fourth notch (Annotated Nair Fig. 2 above) is located adjacent to a junction between said second longitudinal edge and said second lateral edge of said window.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify St. Louis by incorporating first and second notches formed through the mounting plate along the first longitudinal edge of the window, and third and fourth notches formed through the mounting plate along the second longitudinal edge of the window, wherein the first notch is located adjacent to a junction between the first longitudinal edge and the first lateral edge of the window, the second notch is located adjacent to a junction between the first longitudinal edge and the second longitudinal edge and the first lateral edge of the window, and the fourth notch is located adjacent to a junction between the second longitudinal edge and the second lateral edge of the window, as taught by Nair. Such a modification amounts to the simple substitution of one known mounting plate window/notch configuration for another to achieve a predictable result, and thus would not produce any unexpected results. Moreover, doing so would provide reinforced corner regions of the window opening in the mounting plate, thereby reducing stress concentration at the corners of the window and reducing the likelihood of cracking or deformation of the mounting plate during installation or use.
Claim(s) 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090179116 A1 St. Louis (St. Louis) in view of US 11300246 B2 Witherbee (Witherbee).
PNG
media_image10.png
767
520
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, St. Louis fails to disclose said top edge of said mounting plate includes a first turned-back extension, which extends away from said rear face of said mounting plate to provide rigidity to said top edge of said mounting plate, and wherein said bottom edge of said mounting plate includes a second turned-back extension, which extends away from said rear face of said mounting plate to provide rigidity to said bottom edge of said mounting plate. However, Witherbee teaches disclose said top edge of said mounting plate includes a first turned-back extension (Annotated Witherbee Fig. 1 above), which extends away from said rear face of said mounting plate to provide rigidity to said top edge of said mounting plate, and wherein said bottom edge of said mounting plate includes a second turned-back extension (Annotated Witherbee Fig. 1 above), which extends away from said rear face of said mounting plate to provide rigidity to said bottom edge of said mounting plate.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by modifying St. Louis with a first and second turned back extension extending away from the rear face of said mounting plate to increase structural rigidity, as taught by Witherbee. Such a modification would not produce any unexpected results. Moreover, doing so would allow the mounting plates structure to have increased strength during use thus allowing for a longer operational lifespan.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
In regards to the 112(b) rejections for indefiniteness, Applicant has amended effected claims and a withdrawal of this particular rejection has been granted.
Applicant’s remarks, see pages 10-13 lines 35-54, with respect to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by St. Louis have been fully considered but are moot after reinterpretation of St. Louis.
Applicant argues “that first locking element 48 does not extend away from the first ear 28 to connect the connection module 22 with in the window 20,” “it can be seen that the locking tabs 48 are not responsible to hold the connection modules 22 within the windows 20. The locking tabs 48 are actually bent in a direction away from the connection modules 22 and wrap around the backsides of the first and second network rack rails 14 and 16,” “the first and second locking tabs 48 do not and could not play any role in attaching the connection modules 22 within the windows 20, but rather are used to hold straps 32 for cables 30.”
The examiner agrees that that first locking element 48 does not extend away from the first ear 28 to connect the connection module 22 with in the window 20; and it can be seen that the locking tabs 48 are not responsible to hold the connection modules 22 within the windows 20 and the locking tabs 48 are actually bent in a direction away from the connection modules 22 and wrap around the backsides of the first and second network rack rails 14 and 16; and the first and second locking tabs 48 do not and could not play any role in attaching the connection modules 22 within the windows 20, but rather are used to hold straps 32 for cables 30. However, because the examiner has reinterpreted St. Louis, claim 1 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as anticipated by St. Louis. To clarify the rejection, an annotated version of [St. Louis Fig. 1, 3A, and 2A] has been provided above, explicitly identifying the structure relied upon as meeting the claimed limitation. See Annotated St. Louis Figs. 1, 2, and 3.
Claim 1 recites only that the first and second locking tabs extend away from the first and second ears “for attaching the connection module within said window.” Claim 1 does not require any particular manner or mechanism of attachment — it does not require a direct, rigid, or mechanical connection between the locking tab and the connection module, nor does it require that the locking tab contact the connection module itself. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is satisfied by any structure that functions to attach, i.e., secure or fix in position, the connection module within the window.
As shown in Annotated St-Louis Fig. 3, cables extend directly from the connection modules to the reinterpreted locking tabs, where they are secured by elements received within slots of the reinterpreted locking tabs. Because the cables are physically connected to and extend from the connection modules, securing those cables to the reinterpreted locking tabs via said elements attaches the connection modules within the window through the intervening cables — the cables, once secured at the reinterpreted locking tabs, resist movement of the connection modules away from the window, thereby attaching the connection modules within the window as broadly claimed. Applicant has not identified any language in claim 1, nor any special definition in the Specification, that would limit “attaching” to a direct or rigid connection excluding this configuration. Accordingly, the reinterpreted St-Louis discloses first and second locking tabs for attaching the connection module within said window, as recited in claim 1, and the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is set forth above.
Applicant’s remarks, see pages 13 lines 55-61, with respect to claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by St. Louis have been fully considered but are considered moot after reinterpretation of St. Louis.
Applicant argues that “if the leftmost window 20 in St-Louis Fig. 1 is considered to be the claimed window, the leftmost ear 28 does extend away from the first lateral edge of that window, but the other ear 28 relied upon does not extend away from the second lateral edge of that same window”, and “the other ear 28 is located on the right side of the plate, twenty windows away. The other ear 28 extends away a second lateral edge of a different window and not the window having the leftmost ear extending away from the first lateral edge.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 2 recites that “said first ear extends away from said first lateral edge of said window” and “said second ear extends away from said second lateral edge of said window.” Claim 2 does not state that the first and second ears extend directly away from the lateral edges of the window, nor does claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, state that the window is directly coupled to the first and second ears. Applicant has not identified any language in claim 1 or claim 2, nor any special definition in the specification, that would require the first and second ears to extend directly away from, or be directly coupled to, the lateral edges of a single window, to the exclusion of the mounting plate’s other windows. Accordingly, the reinterpreted St. Louis discloses first and second ears extending away from first and second lateral edges of said window as recited in claim 2, and the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is set forth above.
Applicant’s remarks, see pages 14 lines 1-5, with respect to claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by St. Louis have been fully considered but are consider moot after reinterpretation of St. Louis.
Applicant argues that “St-Louis does not show any ear (28) integrally formed with the mounting plate (18) as an approximately ninety-degree bent portion of the mounting plate”, and instead argues that St-Louis discloses “pins (40) on the ear (28) sliding into notches (42) to attach the ear to the mounting plate, citing paragraph 0023, lines 8-13 of St-Louis.”
The Examiner agrees that St. Louis discloses the first and second ears attached to the mounting plate via pins and notches, rather than integrally formed therewith. Accordingly, claim 3 is no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by St. Louis. However, Applicant’s arguments directed to the anticipation rejection are considered moot after reinterpretation of St. Louis, claim 3 now stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over St. Louis alone as set forth above.
Applicant’s remarks, see page 14 lines 6-15, with respect to the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by St-Louis have been fully considered but are considered moot after reinterpretation of St. Louis.
Applicant argues that “the locking tab (48) of St-Louis includes through holes that receive a first locking element, e.g., a Velcro® strap (32) or a cable tie, to secure a bundle of cables (30), citing paragraph 0025, lines 5-9 of St-Louis.” Applicant further argues that “St-Louis makes no mention of the claimed ‘first locking element for attaching said first locking tab to the connection module,’” and that “the connection module of St. Louis is within the window 20 and does not interact with the locking tab 48.”
The examiner agrees that that “the locking tab (48) of St-Louis includes through holes that receive a first locking element, e.g., a Velcro® strap (32) or a cable tie, to secure a bundle of cables (30), citing paragraph 0025, lines 5-9 of St-Louis.” The examiner further agrees that “St-Louis makes no mention of the claimed ‘first locking element for attaching said first locking tab to the connection module,’” and that “the connection module of St. Louis is within the window 20 and does not interact with the locking tab 48.” However, because the examiner has reinterpreted St. Louis, claim 1 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as anticipated by St. Louis. To clarify the rejection, an annotated version of [St. Louis Fig. 1, 3A, and 2A] has been provided above, explicitly identifying the structure relied upon as meeting the claimed limitations. See Annotated St. Louis Figs. 1, 2, and 3.
Accordingly, the reinterpreted St-Louis discloses said claim limitations, and the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) set forth above.
Applicant’s remarks, page 14 lines 20-32, with respect to the rejection of claims 6 and 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over St-Louis in view of Chen have been fully considered but are considered moot.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant argues “Chen has been cited as a teaching reference for a threaded insert attached within or to the first through hole. St-Louis shows slots 50 as the through holes within the locking tab 48. The slots 50 receive a Velcro® strap 32 or a cable tie to secure a bundle of cables 30. There seems to be no motivation to add a threaded insert to the slots 50. A threaded bolt would not work to secure the cables 30 to the locking tab 48. More importantly, Chen fails to cure the deficiencies of St-Louis as noted in the 35 USC 102 arguments above.”
This argument is now moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth above, which rely on Goergan rather than Chen as the teaching reference for the claimed first and second threaded inserts and first and second elements engaging said inserts. Goergan does not suffer from the deficiency alleged by Applicant with respect to Chen, as Goergan explicitly teaches a first threaded insert and a first element that is a threaded bolt or screw configured to engage said first threaded insert, and a second threaded insert and a second element that is a threaded bolt or screw configured to engage said second threaded insert, as set forth in the rejection below.
Regarding claims 10-11, upon further consideration, St-Louis alone discloses the limitations recited therein, and Chen is no longer relied upon as a teaching reference for these claims. Accordingly, claims 10-11 now stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by St-Louis, as set forth above, and Applicant’s arguments directed to the combination of St-Louis and Chen are moot as they do not apply to the new ground of rejection.
Applicant’s remarks, see page 15 lines 1-14, with respect to the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over St-Louis in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) have been fully considered but are considered moot.
Applicant agrees that it would have been obvious, based on the AAPA, to configure the distance between the left and right side edges of the mounting plate of St-Louis to be approximately nineteen to twenty-one inches. Applicant argues, however, that the AAPA does not cure the other deficiencies of St-Louis alleged with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
As set forth above, the Examiner reinterpretation of St-Louis shows St. Louis discloses all limitations of claim 1, and Applicant’s arguments directed to those limitations are considered moot for the reasons discussed above. Because Applicant does not dispute that the AAPA teaches the additional limitation of claim 7, the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over St-Louis in view of AAPA is maintained.
Applicant’s remarks, see page 15 lines 17-20 page 16 lines 1-5 , with respect to the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over St-Louis in view of Reed have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that “Reed fails to cure the deficiencies of St-Louis as noted in 35 USC 102 arguments”. This argument is now moot as they do not apply to the new ground of rejection, as Reed is no longer relied upon as a teaching reference for claim 12. Claim 12 now stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over St-Louis in view of Nair, as set forth above.
Applicant’s remarks, see page 16 lines 7-18, with respect to the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over St-Louis in view of Ortowski have been fully considered but are considered moot.
Applicant agrees that “Ortowski teaches the turned-back edges and that such could be incorporated into St. Louis to improve the rigidity of the mounting plate.” Applicant argues, “however, that Ortowski does not cure the deficiencies of St-Louis as noted in the 35 USC 102 arguments”. This argument is now moot as they do not apply to the new ground of rejection, as Ortowski is no longer relied upon as a teaching reference for claim 13. Claim 13 now stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over St-Louis in view of Witherbee, as set forth above.
Applicant’s remarks, see page 16 lines 23-25 page 17 lines 1-10, with respect to the rejection of claims 14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over St-Louis in view of Follingstad have been fully considered but are considered moot.
Applicant argues that “the examiner states that St. Louis fails to disclose a connection module. However, St. Louis does disclose a connection module 22 in the window 20,” and “Fig. 1 of St. Louis shows five connection modules 22 attached within five windows 20 of the flat plate 18. Fig. 2A shows twenty-four connection modules 22 attached within all twenty-four windows 20, and also shows twenty-four cables 30 leading to the twenty-four connection modules 22. Follingstad has been cited as a teaching reference for a connection module. Follingstad is not needed as a teaching reference for a connection module. Also, Follingstad does not cure the other deficiencies of St. Louis as noted in the 35 USC 102 arguments.”
Upon further consideration, the Examiner agrees that St-Louis alone discloses the limitations recited in claims 14 and 20, and Follingstad is no longer relied upon as a teaching reference for these claims. Accordingly, claims 14 and 20 now stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by St-Louis, as set forth below, and Applicant’s arguments directed to the combination of St-Louis and Follingstad are moot as they do not apply to the new ground of rejection.
Applicant’s remarks, see page 17 lines 14-26, with respect to the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over St-Louis in view of Follingstad and further in view of Chen have been fully considered but are considered not persuasive and are also considered moot.
Applicant argues “Chen has been cited as a teaching reference for a threaded insert attached within or to the first through hole. St. Louis shows slots 50 as the through holes within the locking tab 48. The slots 50 receive a Velcro strap 32 or a able tie to secure a bundle of cables 30. There seems to be no motivation to add a threaded inset to the slots 50. A threaded bolt would not work to secure the cables 30 to the locking tab 48.”
Claim 5 was never rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over St-Louis in view of Follingstad and further in view of Chen. Furthermore, these arguments are now moot as they do not apply to the new grounds of rejection. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by a reinterpreted St-Louis, as set forth above.
Applicant’s remarks, see page 18 lines 1-28 page 19 lines 1-15 page 20 lines 1-13, with respect to the rejection of claims 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over St-Louis in view of Follingstad, further in view of Chen, and further in view of Ivey have been fully considered but are considered moot.
Applicant argues that “The Examiner admits that St-Louis, Follingstad and Chen fail to show a DIN rail with first and second flanges, and the Applicant agrees. The Examiner states that Ivey shows a DIN rail, and indeed Ivey does show a DIN rail 134. However the DIN rail of Ivey does not interact with the other elements of claim 16 in the manner recited in the claims and could not interact with the other elements of claim 16 even if combined with some hybrid embodiment of St- Louis and Follingstad and Chen. On page 20, lines 16-20, the Examiner states that the DIN rail 134 has first and second flanges 148 and 150 which are "slid" into first and second guide channels 102, so that the DIN rail 134 is secured to both of the first and second locking tabs 114. First, the claim requires that the guide channels are formed on a rear face of "the connection units," and Ivey is showing the alleged guide channels 102 being attached to the back side of the network rack rails 130. Second, the DIN rail 134 cannot slide at all. The locking tabs 114 pass through holes 128 in the flanges 148 and 150 and between fixed elements 104 and 106 attached to the rear of the network rack rails 130. The DIN rail 134 is simply is placed over the top of elements 104 and 106 and the locking tab 114 is inserted into the holes. Sliding is entirely prevented by the arrangement. See Col. 7, lines 13-19 of Ivey. The Examiner states that the system shown and detailed above can be added to Chen. On page 20, lines 4-5, the Examiner state that Chen shows a "connection unit includes first and second channels (FIG2-Chen-13) formed on a rear surface (FIG2-Chen-10) of said connection unit (FIG2-Chen-12). Element 13 is not first and second guide channels. Element 13 represents an IDC, which is an abbreviation for an insulation displacement connector. See the last sentence in paragraph 0014 of Chen. Each IDC accepts a single conductor, e.g., a 23 AWG copper conductor, from a single insulated wire of a twisted pair of wires. The wire in a vertical direction and pressed into the IDC, which cuts through the insulation layer to engage the conductor therein. The IDCs are all oriented to accept such as small gauge wire in a vertical direction in Fig. 2. The wire is not designed to slide within the IDC. The blade that cuts through the insulation layer abuts the cut insulation edges and prevents any sliding of the insulated wire. Nothing slides vertically within the IDC. The end cap of the array of IDCs are solid. Look at the structure at the end of the lead line for reference numeral 13. Nothing could slide within the array of IDCs in a horizontal direction. It would be impossible to consider element 13 of Chen to be claimed "first and second guide channels formed on a rear face of said connection unit, wherein said first and second flanges of said DIN rail are slid into said first and second guide channels of said plurality of connection units," as recited in claim 16. A flange of a DIN rail would not fit in the IDC 13 of Chen. The IDC 13 would not allow a flange of a DIN rail to be slid into it. The IDC 13 is an essential element of Chen to create an electrical connection to the jack 12. If a DIN occupies the IDC 13, the jack 12 is rendered non-functional. There is simply no motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the combination as proposed in the rejection of claim 16 and use the IDCs (element 13) as guide channels into which a DIN rail slides. Claim 17 is dependent upon claim 16 and should be allowable for at least the same reasons as stated above.”
These arguments are now moot as they do not apply to the new grounds of rejection, as Follingstad, Chen, and Ivey are no longer relied upon as teaching references for claims 16-17. Claims 16-17 now stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over St-Louis in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art, as set forth above.
Applicant’s remarks, see page 20 lines 17-31 page 21 lines 1-12, with respect to the rejection of claims 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over St-Louis in view of Follingstad, further in view of Chen, further in view of Ivey, and further in view of Reed have been fully considered but are considered moot.
Applicant argues that “Reed fails to cure the deficiencies of St-Louis in view of Follingstad in view of Chen in view of Ivey, as noted in the arguments above. None of the applied prior art shows the claimed "first and second end caps, each having first and second guide channels formed on a rear face thereof, wherein said first and second flanges of said DIN rail are also slid into said first and second guide channels of said first and second end caps." The rejection states on page 24, lines 5-6 "Ivey teaches that end caps having guide channels on their rear faces, into which the DIN rail flanges are slid." However, Ivey shows no connection modules in an array with end caps, and shows no sliding of the DIN rail relative to anything. The "locking comb 114" has three teeth inserted through the openings in the DIN rail to prevent movement of the DIN rail relative to the DIN rail clamp 102. See Col. 7, lines 13-19 of Ivey. Element 102 is not described as first and second guide channels which permit the DIN rail to be slid therein, as alleged in the rejection on page 20, lines 17-18, which state "first and second flanges (FIG 2-IVEY-150) of said DIN rail (FIG2-IVEY-134) are slid into said first and second guide channels (FIG 2-Ivey-102)." Element 102 is a "DIN rail clamp," and any sliding movement of the DIN rail is prevented in Ivey. Chen does nothing to cure the shortcomings of Ivey. Chen shows no end caps with guide channels to allow a DIN rail to slide therein, as argued with regard to claim 16. Claim 19 is dependent upon claim 18 and should be allowable for at least the same reasons as stated above.”
These arguments are now moot as they do not apply to the new ground of rejection, as Follingstad, Chen, Ivey, and Reed are no longer relied upon as teaching references for claims 18-19. Claims 18-19 now stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over St-Louis in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art, as set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly:
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ASA F SOLOMON whose telephone number is +1 571-272-8379. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9am-5pm EST.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at +1 571-272-4797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of the 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.
/ASA FRANKLIN SOLOMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights