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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on January 28, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 28, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 25, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on November 25, 2024. These drawings are accepted.
Examiner Comments
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahl (US 6,460,772 B1) in view of Xia (US 2012/0236490 A1).
As per claim 1, Stahl (US 6,460,772 B1) discloses a method of transferring data, the method comprising: inserting a storage device (e.g., 48, Fig. 5A, 5C; col. 6, ll. 58-63) in a receptacle (e.g., slot (46) into which (48) is inserted; see, inter alia, col. 6, ll. 27-36 and Fig 2A - the receptacle defined between the housing 26 and the top enclosure 22 being coupled together) of an enclosure (20, Fig. 2A, Fig. 5A, Fig. 5C; abstract) such that the storage device (e.g., 48, Fig. 5A, 5C; col. 6, ll. 58-63) couples to an electrical interface card (e.g., 24, Fig. 2A) of the enclosure (20, Fig. 2A, Fig. 5A, Fig. 5C; abstract); a drive bay (see Figs. 5B, 5C) is provided comprising tracks (e.g., 58) configured to receive a first side rail and a second side rail (e.g. rails along the outer edges of reader (20) that are received in guides (58).
Additionally, as per claim 1, the method further includes inserting the enclosure (20, Fig. 2A, Fig. 5A, Fig. 5C; abstract) in a drive bay of a computer system (e.g., 56, Figs. 5A-5C; col. 7, ll. 16-26) such that the electrical interface card (e.g., 24, Fig. 2A) couples to the computer system (56) to transfer data from the storage device to the computer system - without external cables - see, inter alia, col. 7, ll. 15-23.
As per claim 8, further comprising removing the storage device (48) from the receptacle while the enclosure is coupled to the drive bay (54) of the computer system (e.g., slot (46) into which (48) is inserted; see, inter alia, col. 6, ll. 27-36 and Fig 2A - the receptacle defined between the housing 26 and the top enclosure 22 being coupled together).
As per claim 1, however, Stahl (US 6,460,772 B1) remains silent with regard to coupling a first side rail and a second side rail to the enclosure, wherein the first side rail and the second side rail each extend in a first direction and are movable in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction; and inserting the enclosure in a drive bay of a computer system such that the electrical interface card couples to the computer system to transfer data from the storage device to the computer system, the drive bay comprising tracks configured to receive the first side rail and the second side rail.
Additionally, Stahl (US 6,460,772 B1) remains silent with regard to the features of claims 2-4.
Such features provided in a computer system, are well-known in the prior art.
As just one example, Xia (US 2012/0236490 A1), discloses an analogous enclosure in the same field of endeavor as Stahl (US 6,460,772 B1), wherein Xia (US 2012/0236490 A1) teaches an enclosure (300, Fig. 3; abstract) for a computer system wherein the computer system (110, Fig. 1; 210, 260, Fig. 2) comprises a plurality of drive bays (e.g., 210, 260, Fig. 2) configured to couple to the enclosures (300, Fig. 3; abstract; paragraph wherein the keyed components of the plurality of media drives are can be inserted into the plurality of drive bays).
More concretely, as per claim 1, Xia (US 2012/0236490 A1), teaches an enclosure (300, Fig. 3; abstract), comprising: a first side rail (320, Fig. 3) and a second side rail (330, Fig. 3), wherein the first (320, Fig. 3) and second side rails (330, Fig. 3) are removably/movably coupled, to a mechanical housing (311 , Fig. 3; para[0030]-para[0032]), wherein the first side rail (320, Fig. 3) and the second side rail (330, Fig. 3; para[0033]) are configured to removably engage with corresponding tracks (271, 273, 277, 279, Fig. 2; para[0024]), in a computer system (110, Fig. 1; 210, 260, Fig. 2).
The first side rail (320) and the second side rail (330) each extend in a first direction (e.g., a top-to-bottom direction of the media drive enclosure (530) thickness) and are movable in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction (e.g., after the rails are affixed, they along with the media drive enclosure housing (530), can be moved into a receptacle along a length direction of the media drive housing enclosure (530)); the drive bay (e.g., 210, 260, Fig. 2) comprising tracks configured to receive the first side rail and the second side rail - the first side rail (320, Fig. 3) and the second side rail (330, Fig. 3; para[0033]) are configured to removably engage with corresponding tracks (271, 273, 277, 279, Fig. 2; para[0024]), in a computer system (110, Fig. 1; 210, 260, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Stahl (US 6,460,772 B1) and Xia (US 2012/0236490 A1) disclose the modified enclosure of claim 1, Xia (US 2012/0236490 A1) teaches wherein the method further comprises inserting a second storage device (another of (48) as applied to the multiple bays (210/260) of Xia (US 2012/0236490 A1)) into a receptacle of a second enclosure (another computer bay of Xia (US 2012/0236490 A1)) such that the second storage device (another of (48)) couples to a second electrical interface card (e.g., another of (24) as applied to the multiple computer bays of Xia (US 2012/0236490 A1)); coupling a third side rail (e.g. another of the rails as applied to another enclosure (300) of Xia (US 2012/0236490 A1), which houses multiple assemblies (520)) and a fourth side rail (e.g. another of the rails as applied to another enclosure (300) of Xia (US 2012/0236490 A1) on an opposing side of the third rail) to the enclosure, wherein the third and fourth side rails extend in the first direction and are movable in the second direction; and inserting the second enclosure in a second drive bay of the computer system (e.g. in the same manner as explained regarding the first and second rails, supra) such that the second electrical interface card couples to the computer system to simultaneously transfer data from the storage device and the second storage to the computer system (Xia (US 2012/0236490 A1) disclose a server unit where such simultaneous data transfer is conducted), the second drive bay comprising tracks configured to receive the third side rail and the fourth side rail (e.g. in the same manner as explained regarding the first and second rails, supra).
Additionally, as per claim 3, Xia (US 2012/0236490 A1) further discloses wherein the plurality of drive bays comprises 8 drive bays, wherein the at least one enclosure comprises 8 enclosures, wherein each of the enclosures is coupled to one of the drive bays. See paragraph [0017].
Regarding claim 4, Xia (US 2012/0236490 A1) discloses first side rail (320, Fig. 3) is a first shape (Fig. 3 - the shape of 320; para[0031]) and the second side rail (330, Fig. 3) is a second shape (Fig. 3 - the shape of 330; para[0031)) that is different from the first shape, but does not specifically teach wherein the first side rail is replaceable with a third side rail and the second side rail is replaceable with a fourth side rail, wherein the first and second side rails each form a first shape, and wherein the third and fourth side rails each form a second shape that is different than the first shape. It is known that duplication of parts is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived at duplicating each side rail and change around the configurations of the rails . Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have duplicated each side rail and change around the configurations of the rails to allow the enclosure to be received in various different computer systems having different tracks.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Xia (US 2012/0236490 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the features of claims 1-4 not disclosed by Stahl (US 6,460,772 B1), as noted, supra, but expressly taught and suggested by Xia (US 2012/0236490 A1), in order to advantageously provide "various keyed components ensure that media drives are seated in a relatively uniform manner in a server unit and optionally further ensure that only certified media drive assemblies are used." See paragraph [0003] of Xia (US 2012/0236490 A1).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahl (US 6,460,772 B1) in view of Xia (US 2012/0236490 A1), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Cooke et al. (US 5,067,041).
See the discussion of Stahl (US 6,460,772 B1) in view of Xia (US 2012/0236490 A1), supra.
As per claim 5, Stahl (US 6,460,772 B1) in view of Xia (US 2012/0236490 A1) remains silent with regard to adjusting a position of the first side rail, wherein the adjusting comprises coupling a fastener to the enclosure through an opening of the first side rail.
As per claim 6, Stahl (US 6,460,772 B1) in view of Xia (US 2012/0236490 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the adjusting further comprises coupling the fastener to the enclosure through an elongated hole extending in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal dimension of the first side rail.
As per claim 7, Stahl (US 6,460,772 B1) in view of Xia (US 2012/0236490 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the adjusting is done before the inserting the storage device in the receptacle of an enclosure.
However, such vertically adjustable side rails used in a computer system are well-known in the art.
As just one example, Cooke et al. (US 5,067,041) discloses (as per claim 5) an analogous computer system (e.g., computer assembly (10)) with bays for housing storage media (e.g. see, inter alia, Fig. 1A, 2), in the same field of endeavor as Stahl (US 6,460,772 B1) and Xia (US 2012/0236490 A1), wherein as per claim 5, the adjusting of a position of the first side rail (e.g., 190) occurs via coupling a fastener (e.g., 410; see Fig. 14) to a corresponding enclosure through an opening (e.g. 390) of the first side rail (190).
As per claim 6, Cooke et al. (US 5,067,041) further discloses wherein the adjusting further comprises coupling the fastener (410) to the enclosure through an elongated hole (e.g., 390) extending in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal dimension of the first side rail (190) - see Fig. 14.
As per claim 7, Cooke et al. (US 5,067,041) further discloses wherein the adjusting is done before the inserting the storage device (e.g. 185) in the receptacle (e.g., Bay C) of an enclosure (15) - see Figs. 13A, 14.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Cooke et al. (US 5,067,041), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the features of claims 5-7, as taught by Cooke et al. (US 5,067,041), to the combined system of Stahl (US 6,460,772 B1) in view of Xia (US 2012/0236490 A1), in order to advantageously allow for "accommodating several disk drives or similar devices in a plurality of bays within the housing . . .[whereby] [t]he housing is fabricated such that the drives are readily removable." See col. 1, ll. 25-30 of Cooke et al. (US 5,067,041).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Citation of Prior or Relevant Art on enclosed PTO-892
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited art made of record (see the enclosed PTO-892), not applied to the rejection of the claims, supra, each disclose aspects of the claimed invention, including wherein data storage devices are connected to mechanical housings using adjustable rails, and then to computer systems, not using cables. See attached PTO-892.
The best prior art has been applied to the claimed invention (see the rejection of the claims on the applied prior art, supra). However, if Applicant chooses to amend the claims in a manner to obviate the applied prior art, as noted in the rejection, supra, the Applicant is advised to not only carefully review the applied prior art for all it teaches and/or suggests, but also the cited prior art of record in order to obviate any potential rejections based on potential amendment(s); by doing so, compact prosecution on the merits can be enhanced.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William J Klimowicz whose telephone number is (571)272-7577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00AM-6PM, ET.
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, Steven Lim can be reached on (571)270-1210. 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.
/WILLIAM J KLIMOWICZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688