DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Reply Under 37 CFR 1.111
The submission of the reply filed on 01/08/2026 to the non-final Office action of 10/08/2025 is acknowledged. The Office action on the currently pending elected claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, 21-22, and 24-25 follows.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 9, and 24-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 Ln.2: the Office notes that the formatting for the clause “a third air intake opening” is improper and should properly be amended to accurately reflect the amended claim limitation (i.e., it is believed that at least “a third” should be underlined to accurately reflect the amended language).
Claim 9 Ln.2: it is believed that the clause “and a second air intake opening” should be amended to recite “and a fourth air intake opening” since it is believed that claim 9 was supposed to recite similar subject matter as that of claim 2. Furthermore, claim 8 already provides the antecedent basis for the “second air intake opening”, and thus further supporting the Office’s conclusion that claim 9 intended to recite “a fourth air intake opening” and not “a second air intake opening”. For the purposes of examination, the clause “and a second air intake opening” of claim 9 was interpreted as “and a fourth air intake opening”.
Claims 24 and 25: the Office notes that the claims are misnumbered and should be numbered to be claims 23-24.
The Office notes that the above objections are a non-exhaustive list, and thus requests Applicant’s cooperation with reviewing the claims and correcting all remaining informalities present in the claims, but not made of record above. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damaraju (US 20140334091) (of record, cited in the IDS) in view of Tamarkin (US 20160170928) and in further view of Helberg (US 20220095482).
Regarding claim 1, Damaraju discloses (Figs.2-8):
An apparatus, comprising: an add-in card (200) comprising a second air mover (222 and 228) stacked (See Fig.5) with a first air mover (224 and 229), the add-in card (200) comprising a heat sink (230), the heat sink (230) comprising fins (232), the fins (232) extending into a first path of a first air flow (Figs.2-4 and [0032]: the air flow generated by first fan 224,229 will define the "first air flow", and 232 extends into a path of the first airflow since the first airflow passes through 232, and that path will define the "first path") and a second path of a second air flow (Figs.2-4 and [0032]: the air flow generated by second fan 222,228 will define the "second air flow", and 232 extends into a path of the second airflow since the second airflow passes through 232, and that path will define the "second path"), the first air mover (224 and 229) to generate the first air flow (Figs.2-4 and [0032]: the air flow generated by first fan 224,229 will define the "first air flow") and the second air mover (222 and 228) to generate the second air flow (Figs.2-4 and [0032]: the air flow generated by second fan 222,228 will define the "second air flow"); and a cover (210) wherein the cover (210) comprises a first air intake opening (215) in a first side (top side of 210) of the cover (210) and a second side (side surface of 210) of the cover (210), wherein the first side (top side of 210) of the cover (210) is perpendicular to a direction of stacking (Fig.2: the vertical direction) of the first air mover (224 and 229) and the second air mover (222 and 228) (Fig.2: the first air mover and second air mover are stacked in the vertical direction and the top side of the cover extends in a direction that is perpendicular to the direction of stacking), and wherein the second side (side surface of 210) of the cover (210) is perpendicular to the first side of the cover (210) (Fig.2: the sidewall of 210 that defines the “second side” is perpendicular to the top surface of 210 that defines the “first side”).
However, Damaraju fails to explicitly disclose:
A multi-slot add-in card.
Tamarkin however teaches (Figs.1-2 and 5):
A multi-slot add-in card (101) (See Fig.5 and [0030]: 101 is a double-slot add-in card).
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 Tamarkin to modify the device of Damaraju such that the add-in card is a multi-slot add-in card, as claimed, in order to in order to further optimize the computing capabilities due to the add-in card being a double-slot expansion card as taught/suggested by Tamarkin ([0030]) (i.e., compared to a single-slot expansion card, a double-slot expansion card is capable of offering higher computing functionality, and thus further optimizing the computing capabilities).
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:
A second air intake opening in a second side of the cover.
Helberg however teaches (Fig.2):
A second air intake opening (230-B) in a second side (Fig.2: side of 190 that 230-B is pointed to) of the cover (190).
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 Damaraju such that it has a second air intake opening in the second side of the cover, as claimed, in order to further improve the heat dissipation capabilities (i.e., by providing more intake areas, the fans have a greater area to suck in air to cool the add-in card).
Regarding claim 8, Damaraju discloses (Figs.2-8):
An electronic system, comprising: an add-in card (200), the add-in card (200) comprising a second fan (222 and 228) that is stacked (See Fig.5) with a first fan (224 and 229), the add-in card (200) comprising a heat sink (230), the heat sink (230) comprising fins (232), the fins (232) extending into a first path (Figs.3-5: path from 224 to 232 will define the “first path”, and since that path extends through 232, the fins 232 extend into the “first path”) of a first air flow (Figs.3-5 and [0038]: the airflow generated by 224,229 will define the “first air flow”) and a second path (Figs.3-5: path from 222 to 232 will define the “second path”, and since that path extends through 232, the fins 232 extend into the “second path”) of a second air flow (Figs.3-5 and [0038]: the airflow generated by 222,228 will define the “second air flow”), the first fan (224 and 229) to generate the first air flow (Figs.3-5 and [0038]: the airflow generated by 224,229 will define the “first air flow”) and the second fan (222 and 228) to generate the second air flow (Figs.3-5 and [0038]: the airflow generated by 222,228 will define the “second air flow”); and a cover (210) on the add-in card (200) wherein the cover (210) comprises a first air intake opening (215) in a first side (top side of 210) of the cover (210) and a second side (side surface of 210) of the cover (210), wherein the first side (top side of 210) of the cover (210) is perpendicular to a direction of stacking (Fig.2: the vertical direction) of the first fan (224 and 229) and the second fan (222 and 228) (Fig.2: the first fan and second fan are stacked in the vertical direction and the top side of the cover extends in a direction that is perpendicular to the direction of stacking), and wherein the second side (side surface of 210) of the cover (210) is perpendicular to the first side of the cover (210) (Fig.2: the sidewall of 210 that defines the “second side” is perpendicular to the top surface of 210 that defines the “first side”).
However, Damaraju does not explicitly disclose:
A circuit board comprising first and second add-in card slots; an add-in card plugged into the circuit board, the add-in card consuming space allocated for the first and second add-in card slots.
Tamarkin however teaches (Figs.1-2 and 5):
A circuit board (315) comprising first (311) and second (312) add-in card slots; an add-in card (101) plugged into (See Fig.5) the circuit board (315), the add-in card (101) consuming space allocated for the first (311) and second (312) add-in card slots (Fig.5: 101 at least electrically and physically consumes 311 and 312 via 111, 112, and 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 Tamarkin to modify the device of Damaraju such that it has a circuit board that comprises first and second add-in card slots that are arranged such that the add-in card is plugged into the circuit board and consumes space allocated for the first and second add-in card slots, as claimed, in order to further optimize the computing capabilities due to the add-in card being a double-slot expansion card as taught/suggested by Tamarkin ([0030]) (i.e., compared to a single-slot expansion card, a double-slot expansion card is capable of offering higher computing functionality, and thus further optimizing the computing capabilities). Furthermore, providing the motherboard with the first and second add-in card slots provide a simple and efficient means of mechanically and electrically supporting the add-in card.
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 still fails to teach:
A second air intake opening in a second side of the cover.
Helberg however teaches (Fig.2):
A second air intake opening (230-B) in a second side (Fig.2: side of 190 that 230-B is pointed to) of the cover (190).
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 Damaraju such that it has a second air intake opening in the second side of the cover, as claimed, in order to further improve the heat dissipation capabilities (i.e., by providing more intake areas, the fans have a greater area to suck in air to cool the add-in card).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, modified Damaraju does not teach:
(Claim 2): Wherein the multi-slot add-in card further comprises a third air intake opening and a fourth air intake opening reside on a third side of the cover and on a fourth side of the cover respectively and wherein the third side of the cover and the fourth side of the cover are perpendicular to the first side of the cover.
(Claim 9): Wherein a third air intake opening and a second air intake opening reside on a third side of the cover and on a fourth side of the cover respectively and wherein the third side of the cover and the fourth side of the cover are perpendicular to the first side of the cover.
Helberg however further teaches:
Having any desired number of air intakes ([0036]: "In other embodiments, blower 240 may include additional, or fewer, blower inlets 230 to draw surrounding air flow into blower 240").
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 Damaraju such that it has a third air intake opening on a third side of the cover and a fourth air intake opening on a fourth side of the cover, and arranged such that the third side of the cover and the fourth side of the cover are perpendicular to the first side of the cover (i.e., provide the third air intake opening on the opposite side of the second air intake opening, and provide the fourth intake opening on the short wall of 210 that connects the two long walls that have the second and third intake opening, and all of the walls connect perpendicularly to the first side of the cover), as respectively claimed in claims 2 and 9, in order to further improve the heat dissipation capabilities (i.e., by providing more intake areas, the fans have a greater area to suck in air to cool the add-in card).
Furthermore, the above modification 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 achieve the improved heat dissipation capabilities since it would only require a duplication and rearrangement of parts, which have been found to be within the skills of one of ordinary skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 and In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
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 claims 4 and 11, Damaraju further discloses:
(Claim 4): Wherein the first air mover (224 and 229) is between the second air mover (222 and 228) and a circuit board (205) of the add-in card (200) (Figs.5-6: 224,229 is between 222,228 and 205).
With respect to claim 4, as outlined in claim 1 above, Damaraju fails to explicitly disclose:
The multi-slot add-in card.
However, as outlined in claim 1 above, Tamarkin explicitly teaches:
The multi-slot add-in card (101).
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 above teaching of Tamarkin such that when the add-in card of Damaraju is modified to be the multi-slot add-in card, as modified in claim 1 above, the first air mover is between the second air mover and the circuit board of the multi-slot add-in card, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved computing capabilities as outlined in claim 1 above.
See next page→
(Claim 11): Wherein the first fan (224 and 229) is between the second fan (222 and 228) and a circuit board (205) of the add-in card (205) (Figs.5-6: 224,229 is between 222,228 and 205).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Damaraju further discloses:
(Claim 5): Wherein the multi-slot add-in card (200) comprises a graphics processing unit ([0030]: "Examples of components that can be supported by the circuit board 205 and cooled by the heat sink 230 may include, but are not limited to, CPUs (such as CPU 102), CPUs (such as GPU 112), and other integrated type circuits") (emphasis added).
(Claim 12): Wherein the add-in card (200) comprises a graphics processing unit ([0030]: "Examples of components that can be supported by the circuit board 205 and cooled by the heat sink 230 may include, but are not limited to, CPUs (such as CPU 102), CPUs (such as GPU 112), and other integrated type circuits") (emphasis added).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Tamarkin further teaches:
(Claim 6): Wherein the multi-slot add-in card (101) is to consume first and second PCIe slots (311 and 312) ([0030]: 311 and 312 are PCIe slots).
(Claim 13): Wherein the add-in card (101) is to consume first and second PCIe slots (311 and 312) ([0030]: 311 and 312 are PCIe slots).
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 Tamarkin to further modify the device of modified Damaraju such that the add-in card consumes a first and second PCIe slot, as respectively claimed in claims 6 and 13, in order to achieve the optimized computing capabilities as outlined in claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Damaraju further discloses:
(Claim 7): Where the first (224 and 229) and second (222 and 228) air movers are a same type of air mover (Figs.2-3 and 5-6: the blowers have the same construction, and are thus the same type of air mover).
(Claim 14): Where the first (224 and 229) and second (222 and 228) fans are a same type of fan (Figs.2-3 and 5-6: the fans have the same construction, and are thus the same type of fan).
Regarding claim 22, Helberg further teaches:
Wherein the second air intake opening (230-B) directs air flow ([0036]: “draw a surrounding air flow”) toward the first air mover (240) (Fig.2 and [0036]: 230-B will direct air to the first air mover).
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 Damaraju such that when the second air intake opening is incorporated into the device of modified Damaraju, as modified in claim 1 above, the second air intake directs air flow toward the first air mover, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved heat dissipation capabilities as outlined in claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 24-25 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, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above.
See next page→
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device as recited in the combined subject matter of claims 1 and 21 and as recited in the combined subject matter of claims 8 and 24 or the combined subject matter of claims 8 and 25, and at least in part, because claims 21 and 24-25 recites the limitations:
(Claim 21): “wherein the second air intake opening is located between the first air mover and the second air mover”.
(Claims 24 and 25): “wherein the second air intake opening is located between the first fan and the second fan”.
The aforementioned limitations, in combination with all remaining limitations of respective claims 21 and/or 24-25, are believed to render the combined subject matter of claims 1 and 21 and the combined subject matter of claims 8 and 24 or the combined subject matter of claims 8 and 25, and all claims depending therefrom allowable over the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above.
The Office notes that although the limitations of claims 21 and 24-25 in isolation are known in the art, the structure of the “second air intake” relative to the case, first side of the cover, second side of the cover, and the first air intake as respectively claimed in independent claim 1 and 8 is what is believed to place the instant application in condition for allowance. In other words, there are prior art references that teach an air inlet that is placed between two stacked fans. However, modifying Damaraju such that it has a second air intake opening that is located between the first air mover and the second air mover while also having the structure as respectively claimed in independent claims 1 and 8 would require impermissible hindsight since it would require extensive modification of the fans and the cover without any clear advantage or reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the modification, and thus requiring impermissible hindsight (i.e., no clear advantage or reason to modify Damaraju in view of the prior art references to arrive at the structure as respectively claimed in claims 21 and 24-25, and thus requiring impermissible hindsight to arrive at the claimed structure as respectively claimed in claims 21 and 24-25).
Finally, the Office has not identified any double patenting issues. For all of the reasons outlined above, the claims 21 and 24-25 are believed to be in condition for allowance, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 01/08/2026 have been fully considered, but have been found unpersuasive. Regarding amended independent claims 1 and 8, Applicant contests that the claims are in condition for allowance since none of the prior art references properly teaches and/or suggests “a cover wherein the cover comprises a first air intake opening in a first side of the cover and a second air intake opening in a second side of the cover, wherein the first side of the cover is perpendicular to a direction of stacking of the first air mover and the second air mover, and wherein the second side of the cover is perpendicular to the first side of the cover” as now claimed in independent claims 1 and 8. Specifically regarding the Helberg reference, Applicant contests that the rejection is improper and that one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts would not modify Damaraju with Helberg to arrive at the claimed device because “The thermodynamics of a liquid cooling systems are very different from those of air cooling systems, therefore it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select features from a liquid cooling system for an air cooling system”.
The Office has fully considered the above argument, but respectfully disagrees. It is believed that Applicant is contesting that the combination is improper because Damaraju and Helberg are non-analogous art (i.e., Applicant appears to be contesting that because Damaraju is drawn towards air cooling whereas Helberg is drawn towards liquid cooling, two fundamentally different cooling mechanisms, and are thus non-analogous art). The Office reminds Applicant that it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Helberg is believed to be in the same field of endeavor as that of both Applicant’s invention and Damaraju since the field of endeavor is cooling that utilizes at least some form of air cooling, and thus satisfying the “relevant/same field of endeavor” test as outlined in MPEP 2141.01 (a).
Furthermore, even if it is determined that Helberg is not in the same field of endeavor, the Office asserts that Helberg would still fulfill the second test for analogous art (i.e., be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned). Referring to paragraph [0036] Helberg teaches and suggests that any number of air inlets can be utilized in order to provide the desired air intake area, which is not only reasonably pertinent to the disclosure of Damaraju, but also reasonably pertinent to one of the problems and solutions of Applicant’s invention. As outlined in Applicant’s specification (see paragraphs [0202]-[0205] of Applicant’s specification, refer to US PG-Pub version), Applicant utilizes the plurality of air intakes in order to maximize the air intake area to improve cooling, which as outlined above, is similar to the teaching and suggestion of Helberg, and thus qualifying Helberg as analogous prior art. The Office also notes that even though Helberg is drawn to a liquid cooling system, Helberg still teaches an air cooling section of the liquid cooling system that utilizes a fan and a housing with air inlets to produce a desired air intake area, and thus teaching an air cooling structure that is very similar to that of Damaraju. Therefore, only the air cooling section of Helberg is being utilized to modify the structure of Damaraju since the air cooling structure of both Damaraju and Helberg are similar, and thus rendering a combination that would not require impermissible hindsight and/or undo experimentation.
Applicant finally argues that the combination of Damaraju and Helberg would be improper because “It is not shown where Helberg discloses an air-cooled system that includes air intake openings on perpendicular sides of a cover”.
The Office has fully considered the above argument, but respectfully disagrees and notes that although Damaraju and Helberg in isolation do not teach the claimed limitation, the combination of references can properly arrive at the claimed device. As shown in figure 2 of Damaraju, the first air intake (215) is provided on an upper surface, which defines the claimed “first side”, of the case/cover (210). Damaraju also further teaches the case/cover (210) having three side walls that extend perpendicularly from the upper surface, and thus totaling to the case/cover having 4 side walls. Referring now to paragraph [0036] and figure 2 of Helberg, Helberg teaches a second air inlet (230-B) that is provided on a side wall in order to introduce air to the air blower (240). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can utilize the teaching of Helberg to modify Damaraju such that Damaraju has a second air inlet that is formed on any of the three remaining three sidewalls of the cover (210) of Damaraju to define the claimed “second air inlet”. Therefore, even though the references in isolation do not teach the claimed subject matter, the combination of references is believed to properly teach the claimed structure as respectively claimed in independent claims 1and 8. The Office notes that similar logic is applied for claims 2 and 9 as well (i.e., utilizing the teaching provided in paragraph [0036], which teaches that any number of air inlets can be utilized, one can modify Damaraju such that it has at least 4 air inlets on 4 different surfaces of the cover of Damaraju).
For all of the reasons provided above, Applicant’s argument is believed to be non-persuasive, and the rejection with Helberg is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 8821227: teaches an air intake that is provided between two stacked fans.
US 6537019: teaches a housing with an empty space that is provided between two fans that are stacked in a lateral direction.
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 2835