CTFR 17/699,513 CTFR 92346 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Reply Under 37 CFR 1.111 The submission of the reply filed on 06/23/2026 to the non-final Office action of 03/23/2026 is acknowledged. The Office action on the currently pending claims 1, 3-7, 10, 12-14, 16-19, and 21-23 follows. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation As outlined in the non-final Office action of 03/23/2026, the limitation “a trace” as recited in claim 14 was interpreted as the combination of the “air mover trace” for the “first air mover” as recited in independent claim 10 and a second trace for the claimed second air mover (as claimed in claim 13). As claimed in claim 14, the “trace” is supposed to control both the “first air mover” and “second air mover”, but as recited in independent claim 10, the “air mover trace” that is responsible for controlling the “first air mover” is already positively recited. In light of Applicant’s disclosure (specifically Applicant’s specification and figures), it is believed that that Applicant intended for the “trace” of claim 14 to encompass a group traces that includes the “air mover trace” of claim 10 and a second air mover trace that corresponds to the second air mover of claim 13. For the reasons provided above, the limitation “a trace” of claim 14 was interpreted as a group traces that includes the “air mover trace” of claim 10 and a second air mover trace that corresponds to the second air mover of claim 13. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16-17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka (US 20080180910) in view of Winkler (US 20080089025) in further view of Montero (US 20200088793) and in further view of Lim (US 20210120699) 1 . Regarding claim 1, Tomioka discloses (Fig.3): An electronic device (1) comprising: a motherboard (15), wherein the motherboard (15) includes a first side (15a) and an opposite second side (15b) and lacks any fan cutouts (Fig.3: no cutouts for 21 and 22 are provided on 15); a first air mover (21) coupled to the first side (15a) of the motherboard (15); a casing (31) around at least a portion (See Fig.3) of the first air mover (21) and blades (Fig.3: there are a plurality of blades extending from 32 of 21) of the first air mover (21). However, Tomioka does not explicitly disclose: Wherein a motor of the first air mover is mounted directly on the motherboard. Winkler however teaches (Figs.2 and 8): Wherein a motor (18) of the air mover (See Fig.8) is mounted directly on the motherboard (17) (See Figs.2 and 8, [0013], and [0039]: “ It is particularly advantageous that such a fan arrangement makes possible a very low overall height, because its bearing unit and the internal stator of its electric motor can be installed and soldered directly onto the circuit board ”- internal stator 44 of motor 18 is directly mounted on 17, and thus 18 can be considered to be directly mounted to 17 since 44 is a part of 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Winkler to modify the device of Tomioka such that the first air mover has a motor, and to place the motor of the first air mover on the motherboard such that the motor of the first air mover is mounted directly on the motherboard, as claimed, in order to provide a fan arrangement with a very low overall height and can permit an increase in air output as taught by Winkler ([0013]- providing a direct connection between the motor and the motherboard creates a lower assembly profiled, and can also allow a user to utilize taller fan wheels that can create an increase in air output if a user desires). Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). However, the above combination would still fail to teach: An air mover controller, wherein the air mover controller controls the first air mover through air mover trace in the motherboard. Montero however teaches (Figs.1-2): An air mover controller (22 and 34), wherein the air mover controller (22 and 34) controls the first air mover (26) through air mover trace ([0021]: " motherboard trace ") in the motherboard (12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Montero to further modify the device of modified Tomioka such that it has an air mover controller that controls the first air mover through an air mover trace in the motherboard, as claimed, in order to provide a more efficient means of operating the first air mover due to the air mover controller providing an automated means of thermally regulating the device as taught by Montero ([0017]). However, the above combination would still fail to teach: See next page→ Wherein at least one component trace of the motherboard extends beneath blades of the first air mover. Lim however teaches (Figs.2 and 7A-B): Wherein at least one component trace (234a) of the motherboard (224 and 226) extends beneath blades (Fig.2: fan 200 will have a plurality of blades) of the first air mover (200) (Figs.2 and 7A-B: 218 of 200 is mounted on top of 224,226, and thus the blades of 200 will be disposed over 234a, and thus providing 234a below 200). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Lim to further modify the device of modified Tomioka such that the motherboard has at least one component trace that extends beneath the blades of the first air mover, as claimed, in order to provide a simple and efficient means of electrically interconnecting the components of the motherboard (i.e., providing conductive traces on the motherboard allows for a simple and space efficient means of electrically interconnecting the components of the motherboard together since the traces can be integrated within the motherboard itself, and thus providing a space efficient design to interconnect the components of the motherboard). Regarding claim 10, Tomioka discloses (Fig.3): A device (1) comprising: a main printed circuit board (15) for the device (1), wherein the main printed circuit board (15) includes a first side (15a) and an opposite second side (15b) and lacks any fan cutouts (Fig.3: there are no cutouts for any of 21 and 22); a central processing unit (16) for the device (1) on the main printed circuit board (15); a first air mover (21) coupled to the first side (15a) of the main printed circuit board (15); a casing (31) around at least a portion (See Fig.3) of the first air mover (21); and blades (Fig.3: there are a plurality of blades extending from 32 of 21) of the first air mover (21). However Tomioka does not explicitly disclose: Wherein a motor of the first air mover is mounted directly on the main printed circuit board. Winkler however teaches (Figs.2 and 8): Wherein a motor (18) of the air mover (See Fig.8) is mounted directly on the main printed circuit board (17) (See Figs.2 and 8, [0013], and [0039]: “ It is particularly advantageous that such a fan arrangement makes possible a very low overall height, because its bearing unit and the internal stator of its electric motor can be installed and soldered directly onto the circuit board ”- internal stator 44 of motor 18 is directly mounted on 17, and thus 18 can be considered to be directly mounted to 17 since 44 is a part of 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Winkler to modify the device of Tomioka such that the first air mover has a motor, and to place the motor of the first air mover on the main printed circuit board such that the motor of the first air mover is mounted directly on the main printed circuit board, as claimed, in order to provide a fan arrangement with a very low overall height and can permit an increase in air output as taught by Winkler ([0013]- providing a direct connection between the motor and the main printed circuit board creates a lower assembly profiled, and can also allow a user to utilize taller fan wheels that can create an increase in air output if a user desires). Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). However, the above combination would still fail to teach: An air mover controller coupled to the main printed circuit board, wherein the air mover controller is configured to control the first air mover through an air mover trace in the main circuit board. Montero however teaches (Figs.1-2): An air mover controller (22 and 34) coupled to the main printed circuit board (12) (Fig.1: 22 and 34 are coupled to 12 in order to control 26), wherein the air mover controller (22 and 34) is configured to control the first air mover (26) through an air mover trace ([0021]: " motherboard trace ") in the main printed circuit board (12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Montero to further modify the device of modified Tomioka such that it has an air mover controller that is coupled to the main printed circuit board and configured to control the first air mover through an air mover trace in the main printed circuit board, as claimed, in order to provide a more efficient means of operating the first air mover due to the air mover controller providing an automated means of thermally regulating the device as taught by Montero ([0017]). However, the above combination still fails to teach: At least one component trace of the main printed circuit board extends beneath blades of the first air mover. Lim however teaches (Figs.2 and 7A-B): At least one component trace (234a) of the main printed circuit board (224 and 226) extends beneath blades (Fig.2: fan 200 will have a plurality of blades) of the first air mover (200) (Figs.2 and 7A-B: 218 of 200 is mounted on top of 224,226, and thus the blades of 200 will be disposed over 234a, and thus providing 234a below 200). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Lim to further modify the device of modified Tomioka such that the main printed circuit board has at least one component trace that extends beneath the blades of the first air mover, as claimed, in order to provide a simple and efficient means of electrically interconnecting the components of the main printed circuit board (i.e., providing conductive traces on the main printed circuit board allows for a simple and space efficient means of electrically interconnecting the components of the main printed circuit board together since the traces can be integrated within the main printed circuit board itself, and thus providing a space efficient design to interconnect the components of the main printed circuit board). Regarding claim 16, Tomioka discloses (Fig.3): A method comprising: coupling a first air mover (21) to a first side (15a) of a motherboard (15), which lacks any fan cutouts (Fig.3: there is no cutout on 15a made for 21), wherein the motherboard (15) includes the first side (15a) and an opposite second side (15b); providing a casing (31) around at least a portion (See Fig.3) of the first air mover (21); and blades (Fig.3: blades extending from 32 of 21) of the first air mover (21). However, Tomioka does not disclose: See next page→ Coupling a motor of the first air mover directly to a first portion of an air mover trace in the motherboard; coupling an air mover controller to the air mover trace in the motherboard; and routing at least one component trace of the motherboard beneath blades of the first air mover. Winkler however teaches (Figs.2 and 8): Coupling a motor (18) of the air mover (See Fig.8) directly to the motherboard (17) (See Figs.2 and 8, [0013], and [0039]: “ It is particularly advantageous that such a fan arrangement makes possible a very low overall height, because its bearing unit and the internal stator of its electric motor can be installed and soldered directly onto the circuit board ”- internal stator 44 of motor 18 is directly mounted on 17, and thus 18 can be considered to be directly mounted to 17 since 44 is a part of 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Winkler to modify the device of Tomioka such that the first air mover has a motor that is directly coupled to the motherboard, as claimed, in order to provide a fan arrangement with a very low overall height and can permit an increase in air output as taught by Winkler ([0013]- providing a direct connection between the motor and the main printed circuit board creates a lower assembly profiled, and can also allow a user to utilize taller fan wheels that can create an increase in air output if a user desires). However, the above combination would still fail to teach: Coupling a motor of the first air mover directly to a first portion of an air mover trace in the motherboard; coupling an air mover controller to the air mover trace in the motherboard. Montero however teaches (Figs.1-2): See next page→ Coupling the first air mover (26- the one on the left) to a first portion of an air mover trace (Fig.1 and [0021]: " motherboard trace ", the trace portion connecting the left 26 to 22 and 34 will define “first portion of air mover trace”) in the motherboard (12); coupling an air mover controller (22 and 34) to the air mover trace in the motherboard (12) (Air Mover Controller coupled to Air Mover Trace in Motherboard: [0021]: 22,34 have to be electrically coupled to the trace in 12 in order to provide communication to 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Montero to further modify the device of modified Tomioka such that it has an air mover controller and an air mover trace so that the motor of the first air mover is directly coupled to a first portion of the air mover trace, and such that the air mover controller is coupled to the air mover trace in the motherboard, as claimed, in order to provide a more efficient means of operating the first air mover due to the air mover controller providing an automated means of thermally regulating the device as taught by Montero ([0017]). However, the above combination would still fail to teach: Routing at least one component trace of the motherboard beneath blades of the first air mover. Lim however teaches (Figs.2 and 7A-B): Routing at least one component trace (234a) of the motherboard (224 and 226) beneath blades (Fig.2: blades of 200) of the first air mover (200) (Figs.2 and 7A-B: 218 of 200 is mounted on top of 224,226, and thus the blades of 200 will be disposed over 234a, and thus 234a will have to be routed beneath the blades of 200). See next page→ It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Lim to further modify the device of modified Tomioka such that the motherboard has at least one component trace that is routed beneath the blades of the first air mover, as claimed, in order to provide a simple and efficient means of electrically interconnecting the components of the main printed circuit board (i.e., providing conductive traces on the main printed circuit board allows for a simple and space efficient means of electrically interconnecting the components of the main printed circuit board together since the traces can be integrated within the main printed circuit board itself, and thus providing a space efficient design to interconnect the components of the main printed circuit board). Regarding claims 4 and 13, Tomioka further discloses: (Claim 4): A second air mover (22) coupled to the second side (15b) of the motherboard (15), under (See Fig.3) the first air mover (21), wherein an impeller (32- the one corresponding to 22) of the second air mover (22) is on the second side (15b) of the motherboard (15). (Claim 13): A second air mover (22) coupled to the second side (15b) of the main printed circuit board (15), under (See Fig.3) the first air mover (21), wherein an impeller (32- the one corresponding to 22) of the second air mover (22) is on the second side (15b) of the main printed circuit board (15). However, Tomioka does not disclose: (Claim 4): Wherein a motor of the second air mover is on the second side of the motherboard. (Claim 13): Wherein a motor of the second air mover is on the second side of the main printed circuit board. However, as outlined in claims 1 and 10, Winkler teaches: The motor (18) of the air mover (See Fig.8) is on the motherboard (17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Winkler to further modify the device of modified Tomioka such that the second air mover has a motor so that the motor of the second air mover is on the second side of the motherboard/main printed circuit board, as respectively claimed in claims 4 and 13, in order to provide an efficient means of driving the second air mover (i.e., providing a fan structure in which the motor is integrally formed with the fan provides a simple and space efficient fan assembly to efficiently rotate the blades of the fan). Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding claim 7, modified Tomioka does not teach: Wherein one or more of a height, a length, and a width of the first air mover is different than a height, a length, and a width of the second air mover. However, modifying the size of the first air mover or the second air mover such that it has a desired size, including as claimed (i.e., one or more of a height, a length, and a width of the first air mover is different than a height, a length, and a width of the second air mover), would have been an obvious modification that one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would do in order to further optimize the cooling efficiency (i.e., providing different sized fans can better address the event in which one side of the motherboard generates more heat than the other side of the motherboard since larger fans will have higher cooling capacities) since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose , 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding claim 17, Tomioka further discloses: Coupling a second air mover (22) to a second side (15b) of the motherboard (15), wherein the second side (15b) of the motherboard (15) is opposite the first side (15a) of the motherboard (15). However, Tomioka does not disclose: Coupling the second air mover to a second portion of the air mover trace in the motherboard. Montero however further teaches: Coupling the second air mover (26- the right one, not depicted, but goes inside of 28) to a second portion of the air mover trace (Fig.1 and [0021]: " motherboard trace ", the trace portion connecting the right 26, not depicted, but inserts inside of 28, to 22 and 34 will define “second portion of the air mover trace”) in the motherboard (12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further utilize the above teaching of Montero to further modify the device of modified Tomioka such that the second air mover on the second side of the motherboard is coupled to a second portion of the air mover trace in the motherboard, as claimed, in order to provide a simple and efficient means of electrically coupling the second air mover to the motherboard. Regarding claims 21-23, Montero further teaches: (Claims 21 and 23): Wherein the air mover controller (22 and 34) is located outside of the casing (Fig.1: the frame of 26 will define the “casing”) (Fig.1: 22 is located outside of the frame/casing of 26), and wherein the air mover controller (22 and 34) activates and deactivates ([0019]: 32 determines whether or not to send a PWM signal to 26 and thus 22,34 can activate 26 by sending the active “ON” PWM signal and deactivate 26 by not sending active “ON” PWM signal) the first air mover (26) and controls a speed ([0019]: “ A cooling fan controller 34 may also be present to manage cooling fan operations, such as setting fan speeds ”) of the first air mover (26) using the air mover trace ([0021]: " motherboard trace ") in the motherboard (15) (Figs.1-2, [0019], and [0021]: 22 controls 26 via the air mover trace, and thus will also activate/deactivate and control the speeds of 26 via the air mover trace). (Claim 22): Wherein the air mover controller (22 and 34) is located outside of the casing (Fig.1: the frame of 26 will define the “casing”) (Fig.1: 22 is located outside of the frame/casing of 26), and wherein the air mover controller (22 and 34) activates and deactivates ([0019]: 32 determines whether or not to send a PWM signal to 26 and thus 22,34 can activate 26 by sending the PWM signal and deactivate 26 by not sending the PWM signal) the first air mover (26) and controls a speed ([0019]: “ A cooling fan controller 34 may also be present to manage cooling fan operations, such as setting fan speeds ”) of the first air mover (26) using the air mover trace ([0021]: " motherboard trace ") in the main printed circuit board (15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Montero to further modify the device of modified Tomioka such that the air controller is located outside of the casing and such that the air mover controller actives and deactivates the first air mover and controls a speed of the first air mover using the air mover trace in the motherboard/main printed circuit board, as respectively claimed in claims 21-23, in order to achieve the improved fan operation means as outlined in claims 1, 10, and 16 above . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka (US 20080180910), Winkler (US 20080089025), Montero (US 20200088793), and Lim (US 20210120699) as applied to claim s 1, 10, and 16 above, and further in view of Subramonian (US 20220151117) 2 . Regarding claims 3 and 12, modified Tomioka does not teach: (Claim 3): Input/output ports located on the second side of the motherboard, under the first air mover. (Claim 12): Input/output ports located on the second side of the main printed circuit board, under the first air mover. Subramonian however teaches (Fig.1): See next page→ Input/output ports ([0081]: " input/output interface devices ") located on the second side (119) of the motherboard/main printed circuit board (104). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Subramonian to further modify the device of modified Tomioka such that it has input/output ports located on the second side of the motherboard/main printed circuit board and placed under the first air mover, as respectively claimed in claims 3 and 12, in order to further optimize the performance of the motherboard (i.e., the motherboard can now communicate with external devices due to the input/output ports, and thus allowing the motherboard to perform more functions). Regarding claim 19, modified Tomioka does not teach: Wherein input/output ports are located on a second side of the motherboard, under the first air mover, wherein the second side of the motherboard is opposite the first side of the motherboard. However, Subramonian teaches (Fig.1): Wherein input/output ports ([0081]: " input/output interface devices ") are located on a second side (119) of the motherboard (104), wherein the second side (119) of the motherboard (104) is opposite the first side (118) of the motherboard (104). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Subramonian to further modify the device of modified Tomioka such that it has input/output ports on a second side of the motherboard that is opposite the first side of the motherboard and under the first air mover, as claimed, in order to further optimize the performance of the motherboard (i.e., the motherboard can now communicate with external devices due to the input/output ports, and thus allowing the motherboard to perform more functions) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 5-6, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka (US 20080180910), Winkler (US 20080089025), Montero (US 20200088793), and Lim (US 20210120699) as applied to claim s 4, 13, and 17 above, and further in view of Helberg (US 20160034007) 3 . Regarding claim 5, modified Tomioka does not teach: Wherein the first air mover and the second air mover are independently controlled by the air mover controller. Helberg however teaches (Fig.3): Wherein the first air mover (320) and the second air mover (330) are independently controlled ([0024]) by the air mover controller (310). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Helberg to further modify the device of modified Tomioka such that the first air mover and the second air mover are independently controlled by the air mover controller, as claimed, in order to provide a more energy efficient operating means for the first and second air movers as taught by Helberg ([0024]). Regarding claim 6, Tomioka further discloses: Wherein exhaust air (Fig.3: the air leaving 31b of 21) from the first air mover (21) travels away from electronic components (16 and 17) in the electronic device (1) and exhaust air (Fig.3: the air leaving 31b of 22) from the second air mover (22). However, modified Tomioka does not teach: Exhaust air from the second air mover travels towards the electronic components in the electronic device. Helberg however teaches (Fig.1): Exhaust air (air leaving from 120 and flowing towards 140, 145, 150 will define “exhaust air”) from the second air mover (120) travels towards the electronic components (140, 145, and 150) in the electronic device (100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Helberg to further modify the device of modified Tomioka such that that the exhaust air from the second air mover travels towards the electronic components, as claimed, in order to further improve the cooling efficiency (i.e., by changing the location of the second air mover 22 of Tomioka such that it is an inlet air mover will provide an improved means of channeling ambient air into the device and force the air through the electronic components on the second side of the motherboard). Furthermore, the above modification would only require a rearrangement of parts in order to achieve the improved cooling efficiency as discussed above, and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse , 86 USPQ 70. See next page→ Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Regarding claim 14, Montero further teaches: Wherein the first air mover (26- the one on the left) and the second air mover (26- not depicted, but the one on the right that fits into 28) are controlled by the air mover controller (22 and 34) using a trace ([0021]: " motherboard trace "- the traces, in combination, connected to the first and second air mover) in the main printed circuit board (12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Montero to further modify the device of modified Tomioka such that the main circuit board further includes another air mover trace that works together with the air mover trace such that the two air mover traces in combination define the claimed “trace” to electrically couple the first air mover and the second air mover to the air mover controller so that the air mover controller controls the first air mover and second air mover using the trace in the main printed circuit board in order to provide the efficient operation the air movers as outlined in claim 10 above. However, the above combination would still fail to teach: Wherein the first air mover and the second air mover are independently controlled by the air mover controller using trace in the main printed circuit board. Helberg however teaches (Fig.3): See next page→ Wherein the first air mover (320) and the second air mover (330) are independently controlled ([0024]) by the air mover controller (310). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Helberg to further modify the device of modified Tomioka such that the first air mover and the second air mover are independently controlled by the air mover controller using the trace in the main printed circuit board, as claimed, in order to provide a more energy efficient operating means for the first and second air movers as taught by Helberg ([0024]). Regarding claim 18, Montero further teaches: Wherein the air mover controller (22 and 34) controls the first air mover (26- the one on the left) through the first portion of the air mover trace (Fig.1 and [0021]: " motherboard trace ", the trace portion connecting the left 26 to 22 and 34 will define “first portion of air mover trace”) in the motherboard (12) and the second air mover (26- the right one, not depicted, but goes inside of 28) through the second portion of the air mover trace (Fig.1 and [0021]: " motherboard trace ", the trace portion connecting the right 26, not depicted, but inserts inside of 28, to 22 and 34 will define “second portion of air mover trace”) in the motherboard (12) (Figs.1-2 and [0021]: the traces that couple 26 to 22,34 and defines the “first portion of the air mover trace” and “second portion of air mover trace” have to control the two 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Montero to further modify the device of modified Tomioka such that the air mover controller controls the first air mover through the first portion of the air mover trace and the second air mover through the second portion of air mover trace in the motherboard in order to provide a simple and efficient means of electrically coupling the air movers to the air mover controller, and thus also achieve a more efficient means of operating the air movers due to the air mover controller providing an automated means of thermally regulating the device as taught by Montero ([0017]). However, the above combination fails to teach: Wherein the air mover controller independently controls the first air mover through the first portion of the air mover trace in the motherboard and the second air mover through the second portion of the air mover trace in the motherboard. (emphasis added) Helberg however teaches (Fig.3): Wherein the air mover controller (310) independently controls ([0024]) the first air mover (320) and the second air mover (330). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Helberg to further modify the device of modified Tomioka such that the air mover controller independently controls the first air mover through the first portion of the air mover trace in the motherboard and the second air mover through the second portion of the air mover trace in the motherboard, as claimed, in order to provide a more energy efficient operating means for the first and second air movers as taught by Helberg ([0024]). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments of 06/23/2026 have been fully considered, but have been found unpersuasive. Regarding the rejections made to independent claims 1, 10, and 16, Applicant contests that the rejection made in the non-final Office action of 03/23/2026 is improper because the combination of references fails to properly obviate a motor of the first air mover being mounted directly on the motherboard/main printed circuit board as required in independent claims 1, 10, and 16. Specifically regarding Winkler, Applicant contests that the combination would be improper because even though the reference teaches a stator that is directly coupled to a printed circuit board, Winkler still utilizes a through-hole in the printed circuit board in order to secure the fan to the circuit board, which is different from the claimed invention because each of independent claims 1, 10, and 16 require a printed circuit board without any fan cutouts. In other words, Applicant contests that the combination of references would have to result in a device that requires a fan cutout to secure a fan to a circuit board, and thus teaching a structure different than that of the claimed invention as respectively recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 16 since each of the claims distinctly claim a circuit board having no fan cutouts to secure the fan to the printed circuit board. The Office has fully considered the above argument, but respectfully disagrees and directs Applicant’s attention to figure 3 of Tomioka. As outlined in the body of the rejection above and as shown in figure 3 of Tomioka, Tomioka explicitly shows two fans (21 and 22) that are each secured to a printed circuit board (15) without having to utilize any fan cutouts. However, Tomioka fails to provide any teaching or suggestion as to how the motor of the fans are coupled to the printed circuit board. Referring now to Winkler, Winkler explicitly teaches a technique that allows for a fan to be directly coupled to a printed circuit board (i.e., providing a direct solder connection between the stator of the motor to the printed circuit board as taught in paragraph [0013] of Winkler). Therefore, utilizing the disclosures of Tomioka and Winkler, one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts would be able to combine the references to arrive at a device in which fans are secured to a printed circuit board without any fan cutouts as disclosed by Tomioka and to provide a direct connection by providing a direct solder connection between the printed circuit board and the fans by directly solder the stator of the fans to the printed circuit board. Therefore, while the references in isolation may not teach the claimed limitation as respectively recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 16, the Office contests that the combination of references can properly obviate the aforementioned claim limitations without utilizing improper hindsight reasonsing and without rendering any of the devices inoperable for their intended purpose. For all of the reasons outlined above, Applicant’s argument is believed to be in error. Applicant further contests that the rejection is improper because the combination would have to rely upon impermissible hindsight in order to arrive at the claimed device as respectively claimed in independent claims 1, 10, and 16 since Tomioka is completely silent to directly mounting a fan motor to a printed circuit board without utilizing fan cutouts. Applicant also contests that “Even if one were to combine Tomioka with Winkler, there would be no motivation to further combine with Montero, Heinrich, AND Lim” since Tomioka already teaches “a complete cooling solution with fans on both sides of the PCB”. The Office has fully considered the above argument, but respectfully disagrees. As outlined above, the disclosures of Tomioka and Winkler can result in a device in which a fan motor is directly attached to a printed circuit board that has no fan cutouts because Tomioka explicitly teaches fans being directly mounted to a circuit board without any fan cutouts and because Winkler teaches a technique in which one can directly mount a fan motor to a printed circuit board, as outlined above. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can utilize the technique taught by Winkler without utilizing the structure of Winkler to modify the device of Tomioka to arrive at a fan motor that is directly secured to the a printed circuit board without fan cutouts as claimed in independent claims 1, 10 and 16. Furthermore, the Office action also clearly outlines that the motivation for the combination is that the resulting device will provide a fan with a “very low overall height and can permit an increase in air output as taught by Winkler ([0013]- providing a direct connection between the motor and the motherboard creates a lower assembly profiled, and can also allow a user to utilize taller fan wheels that can create an increase in air output if a user desires)”. Therefore, Applicant’s argument that there is no motivation for the combination is believed to be improper. Furthermore, the Office asserts that Applicant has provided no reason as to why the motivation provided for the rejection is improper. For all of the reasons outlined above, Applicant’s arguments that the combination would utilize impermissible hindsight and the combination having no reasons to combine are believed to be in error, and the rejection is maintained. The Office further notes that even if Applicant were to continue to make the same argument and even if the combination over Winkler is believed to be improper, the Office notes that the claims would still not be in condition for allowance because Qin (WO 2009043240) (of record, cited in the PTO-892 of 11/06/2025) explicitly teaches a fan motor that is directly coupled to a printed circuit board and the circuit board having no fan cutouts (See Fig.5 and Pg.7 Par.1 of Translation provided on 11/06/2025: “ the motor of the fan 5 is directly fixed on the circuit board (main board) 8 ”, and the printed circuit board 8 has no cutout). Therefore, even if Winkler is found to not be a proper prior art reference for combination, the claimed structure would still not be in condition for allowance in view of Qin. Therefore, the Office contests that that the limitation of a fan being directly coupled to a printed circuit board with no cutouts does not appear to be a limitation that will advance prosecution. Finally, the Office notes that while it is true that Tomioka already teaches “a complete cooling solution with fans on both sides of the PCB” as outlined by Applicant, Tomioka does not provide an explicit teaching as to how the control section (as outlined in paragraph [0038] of Tomioka) is arranged on the circuit board and only provides a generic teaching that the fans are controlled by a controller based on cooling requirements. Therefore, the remaining prior art reference result in a simple and efficient controller means that will allow for efficient and optimal fan controlling and cooling performance. For all of the reasons outlined above, Applicant’s argument is believed to be in error. Finally, Applicant contests that the Offices conclusion that the blades of Lim are disposed over the component trace (234a) of Lim is incorrect and unsupported by Lim, and thus failing to teach and/or suggest “wherein at least one component trace of the motherboard extends beneath blades of the first air mover” as required in independent claim 1 (and as also required in independent claims 10 and 16 as well). The Office has fully considered the above argument, but respectfully disagrees and notes that the Office’s position is already outlined in the advisory action of 02/24/2026. As outlined in the advisory action of 02/24/2026, the scope of “beneath” is incredibly broad since the word “beneath” simply means “in or to a lower position: below” or “directly underneath” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beneath). Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the word is any object that is at a lower position/level than another objection (i.e., the word “beneath” is not only exclusively limited to “directly underneath”). As shown in figures 2 and 7A-B of Lim, the fan (200) is at a plane that is above the circuit boards (224 and 226). In other words, the printed circuit boards (224 and 226) are provided below both the fan (200) and the fan blades, and thus also resulting in the traces, including trace (234a), of the printed circuit board being beneath the fan (200) and the fan blades because the circuit boards are beneath the fan via the connectors (706 and 710). In other words, Lim teaches circuit board traces that are at a lower position than that of a fan and its blades, and thus satisfying the broadest reasonable interpretation for the word “beneath” and thus also satisfying the broadest reasonable interpretation for “at least one component trace of the motherboard extends beneath fans of the first air mover”. Therefore, Applicant’s argument that Lim does not support the Office’s conclusion is believed to be in error. For all of the reasons outlined above, the rejection to independent claims 1, 10, and 16 over Tomioka, Winkler, Montero, and Lim is still believed to be proper and thus maintained. Regarding newly added claims 21-23, the Office notes that Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are moot since the claims recite subject matter that has not been previously considered. However, it is believed that Montero teaches the subject matter of newly added claims 21-23 (see body of rejection above). Therefore, claims 21-23 are not believed to contain subject matter that will advance prosecution. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 STEPHEN S SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at (571)272-3740. 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. /STEPHEN S SUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 2 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 3 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 4 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 5 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 6 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 7 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 8 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 9 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 10 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 11 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 12 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 13 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 14 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 15 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 16 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 17 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 18 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 19 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 20 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 21 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 22 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 23 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 24 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 25 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 26 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 27 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 28 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 17/699,513 Page 29 Art Unit: 2841 1 Examiner’s Note: regarding method claims 16-17, since there are no specific method steps being claimed, just a general process of assembling the device (i.e., providing each element, forming, joining, inserting, connecting, etc.), the fact that the structure of the device of the present invention is obvious over Tomioka in view of Winkler, Montero, and Lim, means that the general method for providing such a structure is also obvious in view of the same references. The method steps recited in the claims are obviously necessitated by the structure of the device of Tomioka in view of Winkler, Montero, and Lim. 2 Examiner’s Note : regarding method claim 19, since there are no specific method steps being claimed, just a general process of assembling the device (i.e., providing each element, forming, joining, inserting, connecting, etc.), the fact that the structure of the device of the present invention is obvious over Tomioka in view of Winkler, Montero, Lim, and Subramonian, means that the general method for providing such a structure is also obvious in view of the same references. The method steps recited in the claims are obviously necessitated by the structure of the device of Tomioka in view of Winkler, Montero, Lim, and Subramonian. 3 Examiner’s Note : regarding method claim 18, since there are no specific method steps being claimed, just a general process of assembling the device (i.e., providing each element, forming, joining, inserting, connecting, etc.), the fact that the structure of the device of the present invention is obvious over Tomioka in view of Winkler, Montero, Lim, and Helberg, means that the general method for providing such a structure is also obvious in view of the same references. The method steps recited in the claims are obviously necessitated by the structure of the device of Tomioka in view of Winkler, Montero, Lim, and Helberg.
Prosecution Insights