DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 have been considered for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Clidaras et al. (US Publication 2008/0055846).
In re Claim 1, Clidaras discloses a receptacle (paragraphs 0081-0082) for a module for computation 901-910, wherein the receptacle comprises a mating interface for connection to a corresponding module interface (paragraphs 0081-0082, “docking regions” with “quick-connection stubs” to be connected with “appliance style connectors”), wherein the mating interface comprises connectors for power and networking (Id.), wherein the module for computation 901-910 is a standard freight container (paragraphs 0009, 0017-0019, 0046).
In re Claims 2 and 6, Clidaras discloses wherein the interface further comprises connectors for cooling (paragraphs 0081-0082).
In re Claims 5 and 9, Clidaras discloses a module interface for a module for computation (paragraph 0081), wherein the module interface comprises connectors for power and networking (Id.), wherein the connectors are adapted for connection to a corresponding receptacle (paragraph 0081) having a mating interface (paragraphs 0081-0082, “appliance style”),wherein the module for computation 901-910 is a standard freight container (paragraphs 0009, 0017-0019, 0046).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clidaras et al. (US Publication 2008/0055846) in view of Brewster (US Publication 2007/0212183).
In re Claims 3 and 7, Clidaras discloses the limitations as noted above, but does not explicitly disclose a locking mechanical interface. However, providing such was not new in the art before the effective filing date. For example, Brewster discloses a standard freight container 22 that may be locked to a surface with a mechanical interface 24. See Brewster, Figure 1. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of container securement to have provided a locking mechanical interface as disclosed in Brewster with the apparatus as otherwise disclosed in Clidaras. The addition of a locking mechanical interface ensures that the container does not slide or move during shipping. Brewster, paragraphs 0005-0014.
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clidaras et al. (US Publication 2008/0055846) in view of Curletto et al. (WO 2022118267).
In re Claims 4 and 8, Clidaras discloses the limitations as noted above, but does not explicitly disclose a guide for guiding a module in place during installation. However, providing such was not new in the art before the effective filing date. For example, Curletto discloses a receptacle 14 with a guide 12, 13, 40 for guiding the receptacle into connection with a corresponding module 2 interface 20. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of containers to have provided a guide as disclosed in Curletto with the apparatus as otherwise disclosed in Clidaras. A guide would ensure that the power and networking connections were made when the container was in a docked position. Curletto, p. 2 ll. 6-29.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clidaras et al. (US Publication 2008/0055846) in view of Crawford, Jr. et al. (US Publication 2021/0394660).
In re Claim 10, Clidaras discloses the limitations as noted above, and further discloses a method for installing a module for computation 901-910, comprising a module interface (paragraphs 0081-0082) with a receptacle, the method comprises steps of positioning the module until the module interface is connected with a corresponding mating interface of the receptacle to provide power and networking to the module for computation (paragraphs 0081-0082). Clidaras does not explicitly disclose a lowering the module into connection. However, providing such was not new in the art before the effective filing date. For example, Crawford discloses a module for computation 200 that is lowered until a module guide 430 interfaces with a guide 230 for guiding the module for computation in place, and lowering the module for computation 200 further allows for connection of a module interface 220 for power and networking connection (paragraph 0163) with a mating interface 300 of a receptacle (Figures 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of containers to have incorporated a lowering technique, as disclosed in Crawford, with the apparatus and disclosure as otherwise disclosed in Clidaras to allow for alternative module connection methods. Lowering a module would provide for greater control of the module especially when the module is larger/heavier which protects the module from damage as well as improves safety. Crawford, paragraphs 0083, 0197-0209.
In re Claim 11, Crawford further discloses a step of locking the module for computation 200 in place, wherein the receptacle comprises a mechanical interface 230 and the module 200 is locked through the mechanical interface 230. Crawford, paragraphs 0163-0165.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrian S Wilson whose telephone number is (571)270-3907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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.
/ADRIAN S WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
