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 Invention I (claims 1-12 and 20) in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 20, the claim states, “A computing system comprising: a mounting area flexibly configured to support a computing device, the mounting area having two lateral sides extending between a front area and a rear area, the computing device being either a first computing device or a second computing device, the first computing device having a first depth D1 that is greater than a second depth D2 of the second computing device; a rail fixedly positioned along one of the two lateral sides, the rail including a plurality of position stops that includes a first position stop and a second position stop, the first position stop being closer to the front area to accommodate the first depth D1 of the first computing device, the second position stop being closer to the rear area to accommodate the second depth D2 of the second computing device; and a mounting ear movably coupled to the rail and fixedly coupled to the computing device, the mounting ear being movable along the rail between the first position stop and the second position stop, the mounting ear structurally supporting the first computing device when in the first position stop, the mounting ear structurally supporting the second computing device in the second position stop.”
It is unclear to the examiner if the computing device being either a first computing device or a second computing device that means the computing device should be either first or second. It creates confusion for the following limitations where “the first computing device having a first depth D1 that is greater than a second depth D2 of the second computing device” and “the first position stop being closer to the front area to accommodate the first depth D1 of the first computing device, the second position stop being closer to the rear area to accommodate the second depth D2 of the second computing device and the mounting ear structurally supporting the second computing device in the second position stop.” Examiner interpreted the claim 20 having the first computing device with D1 depth. Applicant is requested to confirm the interpretation.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Batta et al. (US 5262923 A and Batta hereinafter)
Regarding claim 1, Batta discloses (figs. 1-11 and see annotated fig below) a computing system comprising: a computing device (44) having a first depth D1 and two lateral sides extending between a front area and a rear area; a mounting area (40) flexibly configured to support the computing device; a rail (41a-b) fixedly positioned along one of the two lateral sides, the rail including a plurality of position stops (42 and 43) that includes a first position stop (42) and a second position stop (43), the first position stop being closer to the front area to accommodate the first depth D1 of the computing device, the second position stop being closer to the rear area (fig.8); and a mounting ear (30) movably coupled to the rail, the mounting ear being movable along the rail between the first position stop and the second position stop (shows in figs 7-8), the mounting ear structurally supporting the computing device when in the first position stop (fig.8).
PNG
media_image1.png
500
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Batta discloses (figs. 1-11) the computing system of claim 1, wherein another rail is fixedly positioned along another one of the two lateral sides, the another rail being generally identical to the rail, the another rail having another mounting ear that is generally identical to the mounting ear (figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 6, Batta discloses (figs. 1-11) the computing system of claim 1, wherein each position stop of the plurality of position stops includes a stop surface adjacent to a stop part.
PNG
media_image2.png
486
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Batta discloses (figs. 1-11 and see annotated fig below) the computing system comprising: a mounting area (40) flexibly configured to support a computing device, the mounting area having two lateral sides extending between a front area and a rear area, the computing device being either a first computing device (44) or a second computing device, the first computing device having a first depth D1 that is greater than a second depth D2 of the second computing device; a rail fixedly positioned along one of the two lateral sides, the rail including a plurality of position stops that includes a first position stop and a second position stop (42 and 43), the first position stop being closer to the front area to accommodate the first depth D1 of the first computing device, the second position stop being closer to the rear area to accommodate the second depth D2 of the second computing device; and a mounting ear movably coupled to the rail and fixedly coupled to the computing device, the mounting ear (30) being movable along the rail between the first position stop and the second position stop, the mounting ear structurally supporting the first computing device when in the first position stop (fig.8), the mounting ear structurally supporting the second computing device in the second position stop.
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.
Claims 2, 4-5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batta et al in view of Marrs et al (US 20250024624 A1 and Marrs hereinafter)
Regarding claim 2, Batta discloses (figs. 1-11) the computing system of claim 1, but fails to disclose a mounting post fixedly mounted between the mounting ear and the mounting area. However, Marrs teaches (fig.3) a mounting post (340) fixedly mounted between the mounting ear (320) and the mounting area (310). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a mounting post of Marrs to device of Batta in order to provide a rack rail is secured to mounting post (Marrs, and [0054]).
Regarding claim 4, Batta discloses (figs. 1-11) the computing system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the mounting ear has a first side and a second side, the first side being generally parallel to the rail, the second side extending generally perpendicular to the rail. However, Marrs teaches (fig.3) wherein the mounting ear has a
PNG
media_image3.png
494
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
first side and a second side, the first side being generally parallel to the rail, the second side extending generally perpendicular to the rail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a mounting post having the first/second side of Marrs to device of Batta in order to provide a rack rail is secured to mounting post (Marrs, and [0054]).
Regarding claim 5, Batta/Marrs discloses the computing system of claim 4. Marrs discloses wherein the second side is fixedly mounted to a mounting post.
PNG
media_image3.png
494
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a mounting post of Marrs to device of Batta in order to provide a rack rail is secured to mounting post (Marrs, and [0054]).
Regarding claim 10, Batta discloses (figs. 1-11) the computing system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the computing device is an edge server. However, Marrs teaches wherein the computing device is an edge server ([0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an edge server of Marrs to device of Batta in order to compute, calculate, determine, classify, process, transmit, receive, retrieve, originate, switch, store, display, communicate, manifest, detect, record, reproduce, handle, or utilize any form of information, intelligence, or data for business, scientific, control, or other purposes (Marrs, and [0054]).
Regarding claim 11, Batta/Marrs discloses the computing system of claim 10. Marrs teaches (fig.3) wherein the computing device is a network switch ([0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an edge server of Marrs to device of Batta in order to compute, calculate, determine, classify, process, transmit, receive, retrieve, originate, switch, store, display, communicate, manifest, detect, record, reproduce, handle, or utilize any form of information, intelligence, or data for business, scientific, control, or other purposes (Marrs, and [0054]).
Regarding claim 12, Batta/Marrs discloses the computing system of claim 10. Marrs teaches (fig.3) wherein the computing system of claim 10, wherein the mounting area is a rack- mount server cabinet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an edge server of Marrs to device of Batta in order to compute, calculate, determine, classify, process, transmit, receive, retrieve, originate, switch, store, display, communicate, manifest, detect, record, reproduce, handle, or utilize any form of information, intelligence, or data for business, scientific, control, or other purposes (Marrs, and [0054]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art fails to disclose, “a latch mechanism that secures the mounting ear in a respective one of the plurality of stops, the latch mechanism including a latch holder that is inserted between adjacent stop parts of the plurality of position stops.”
Claims 8-9 are objected being depend on claim 7.
However, the prior art (Included in PTO 892), when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROCKSHANA D CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-1602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Allen L Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. 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.
/ROCKSHANA D CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights