DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The proposes replacement sheets of drawings, filed July 20, 2026, have been reviewed and approved by the examiner for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 22, 2026 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and accompanying arguments, filed July 20, 2026, with respect to the outstanding 112(b) & 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the above mentioned rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration and search, a new ground(s) of rejection is set forth herein; and while applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior claim scope have been considered, they are now moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. As such, the position is taken that a prima facie case of obviousness has been established since applicants claimed invention only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions. Common sense directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of known devices according to their established functions, as such, the examiner has identified reasons that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements in the same way as the claimed new invention does. Consequently, the rejections are deemed adequate to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 221261598 in view of Scholder [US 5,918,956] and Huang [US 5,980,003]. CN`598 teaches of a server chassis module (fig. 1), comprising: a chassis base (1), disposed with a bearing groove (defined as the combined bottom wall and lower sections of the side walls of the chassis base – in as much as applicant identifies a similar structure), wherein a bridge-shaped convex structure (shown as “A” in fig. 1 and enlarged in fig. 2) is disposed on a groove bottom surface of the bearing groove; and a mainboard tray (2), wherein a through hole structure (21) is disposed at a position of the mainboard tray that is opposite to the bridge-shaped convex structure, and the bridge-shaped convex structure is mated with the through hole structure to connect the mainboard tray and the chassis base (as disclosed). CN`598 teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed module as outlined above, but does not show the inclusion of a server chassis cover or show a wire management protrusion as prescribed by applicant. As to the addition of a cover, Scholder is cited as an evidence reference for the known incorporation of a server chassis cover (22) in combination with a chassis base (23). Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of CN`598 so as to include a cover for the chassis base in view of Scholder’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a means by which the module / apparatus is completely enclosed, when the cover is seated upon the chassis base, for the protection of hardware installed upon the chassis base – as is conventional in the art. As modified, the chassis cover can be disposed at a notch of the bearing groove and forming an accommodating cavity with the bearing groove (note fig. 4 of Scholder where the bottom of the chassis would constitute the bearing groove); wherein a shielding protrusion (such as (36, 40) or (38) of Scholder) would be disposed on a sidewall surface ((25l, 25r) of Scholder) of the chassis base in a protruding manner, and the shielding protrusion is in contact with an inner wall surface ((30, 32) or (34) of Scholder) of the upper chassis cover to connect the chassis base and the upper chassis cover. As to the incorporation of a wire management protrusion, Huang is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of wire management protrusions (212, 213 for instance) disposed on a groove wall surface (lower vertical side wall surface of (21)) of a chassis base (1) that defines a bearing groove in an analogous art. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of CN`598 so as to include protrusions along a groove wall surface (side wall surface in a manner similar to applicants representation within fig. 8) in view of Huang’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a means by which the inward projecting protrusions can be used to guide features associated with the server chassis module as dependent upon the needs and/or preferences of an end user. As modified, the protrusions would be equal distance from the groove bottom surface (note (2) of Huang as applied to bottom surface of CN`598 – fig. 1) of the bearing groove, and the protrusions would be arranged at intervals in a direction from a front window (the left open side of (1) as shown in fig. 1 of CN`598) to a rear window (the right open side of (1) as shown in fig. 1 of CN`598) of the server chassis module.
Claims 2 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN`598, Scholder and Huang, and further in view of Chen et al., [US 7,254,037]. The combined prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed module as outlined above, but does not show particulars of a support bump and associated holes for mounting a CPU module to the chassis base. As to this aspect, Chen is cited as an evidence reference for the known technique of providing a first support bump (such as (210)) is disposed on the groove bottom surface of the bearing groove (bottom surface of a chassis base (200)) in a protruding manner; a first avoidance through hole (24) is disposed at a position of a mainboard tray (20) that is opposite to the first support bump to avoid the first support bump (fig. 1); the server chassis module further comprises a mainboard body (10), and the mainboard body is disposed on the mainboard tray (represented by the fasteners (18) as shown in fig. 1); an inherent CPU module would be disposed on the mainboard tray (such as along the motherboard as is conventional in the art); and the first support bump is configured to provide support for the CPU module. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of the combined prior art so as to include a support bump with mainboard tray and mainboard body in view of Chen’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a conventional means by which hardware components associated with an electronic chassis are securely mounted upon a chassis base. Regarding Claim 19, as modified, Chen discloses that the mainboard tray (20) comprises: a tray body (viewed as the main body portion of (20) as shown in fig. 3 for instance), wherein the through hole structure (24) is a limiting hole that is disposed on the tray body (shown); and a guiding flange (can be viewed as the platforms (22)), wherein the guiding flange is disposed at a hole periphery of at least a portion of the limiting hole, and the guiding flange extends in a direction away from the tray body (note figs. 1 & 3 for example).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 10-18 & 20-23 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – see the attached Form PTO-892 showing motherboard mounting upon a computer chassis.
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 JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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. 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.
JOH
July 29, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights