DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-6, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trygubova (10,681,844).
Regarding Claim 1: Trygubova teaches a compute device comprising: a chassis (204); a circuit board (206); an integrated circuit component (212) mounted on the circuit board (figs. 10-10); a heat sink (314) mounted on the integrated circuit component (figs. 10-12); and a spring (310) pressing against the chassis (figs. 10-12) and pressing the heat sink (figs. 10-12) and the integrated circuit component together (figs. 10-12).
Regarding Claim 2: Trygubova teaches wherein the spring is a leaf spring (figs. 10-12).
Regarding Claim 5: Trygubova teaches wherein the spring presses against the heat sink (figs. 10-12).
Regarding Claim 6: Trygubova teaches of wherein the circuit board (206) comprises a first side (fig. 9) and second side (fig. 9), wherein the integrated circuit component (212) is mounted on the first side of the circuit board (fig. 9), wherein the spring (202-7) presses against the second side of the circuit board (fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 12: Trygubova teaches wherein the spring does not require attachment holes passing through the circuit board (figs. 10-12).
Regarding Claim 13: Trygubova teaches wherein the circuit board comprises a first side and second side (figs. 10-12), wherein the integrated circuit component is mounted on the first side of the circuit board (figs. 10-12), wherein the spring does not require a keep-out zone on the first side of the circuit board (figs. 10-12).
Regarding Claim 14: Trygubova teaches wherein the integrated circuit component is a processor (col. 5 lines 32-42).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trygubova (10,681,844) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Paavola (2021/0321541).
Regarding Claim 3: Trygubova lacks a specific teaching of wherein the spring is a coil spring.
Paavola teaches wherein the spring is a coil spring (152a and 152b in fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Trygubova by having wherein the spring is a coil spring as disclosed by Paavola in order to allow for a more secure and tight connection between the spring devices and the electronic components to the heat dissipation portions of the apparatus which decreases the chance of the apparatus over heating which would require repair or replacement of the damaged components.
Regarding Claim 10: Trygubova lacks a specific teaching of wherein the heat sink comprises a vapor chamber.
Paavola teaches wherein the heat sink comprises a vapor chamber (chamber of heat pipe 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Trygubova by having wherein the heat sink comprises a vapor chamber as disclosed by Paavola in order to allow for an increased heat dissipation quality of the heat sink module which decreases the chance of the apparatus over heating which would require repair or replacement of the damaged components.
Regarding Claim 11: Trygubova lacks a specific teaching of wherein the heat sink comprises a heat pipe.
Paavola teaches wherein the heat sink comprises a heat pipe (110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Trygubova by having wherein the heat sink comprises a heat pipe as disclosed by Paavola in order to allow for an increased heat dissipation quality of the heat sink module which decreases the chance of the apparatus over heating which would require repair or replacement of the damaged components.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trygubova (10,681,844) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Guo (2022/0394875).
Regarding Claim 4: Trygubova lacks a specific teaching of wherein the spring is a strip of foam.
Guo teaches wherein the spring is a strip of foam (paragraphs [0009] and [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Trygubova by having the spring is a strip of foam as disclosed by Guo in order to allow for a lighter weight component within the device while still holding the integrity of what is needed for the apparatus to function properly.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trygubova (10,681,844) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Stolz (6,226,184).
Regarding Claim 7: Trygubova lacks a specific teaching of wherein the compute device is a laptop.
Stolz teaches wherein the compute device is a laptop (col. 1 lines 10-16, portable computer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Trygubova by having the compute device is a laptop as disclosed by Stolz in order to allow for a variability of the devices in which the user can benefit from the improved heat dissipation qualities which in turn would decrease the chances of damage to the internal components of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 8: Trygubova lacks a specific teaching of wherein the laptop comprises a display portion and a base portion, wherein the chassis comprises a bottom cover of the base portion, wherein the spring presses against the bottom cover of the base portion.
Stolz teaches wherein the laptop comprises a display portion (20) and a base portion (18), wherein the chassis comprises a bottom cover of the base portion (fig. 1 wherein 18 is seen as a bottom of the device), wherein the spring presses against the bottom cover of the base portion (fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Trygubova by having the laptop comprises a display portion and a base portion, wherein the chassis comprises a bottom cover of the base portion, wherein the spring presses against the bottom cover of the base portion as disclosed by Stolz in order to allow for a variability of the devices in which the user can benefit from the improved heat dissipation qualities which in turn would decrease the chances of damage to the internal components of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 9: Trygubova lacks a specific teaching of wherein the compute device is a tablet.
Stolz teaches wherein the compute device is a tablet (col. 1 lines 10-16, portable computer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Trygubova by having wherein the compute device is a tablet as disclosed by Stolz in order to allow for a variability of the devices in which the user can benefit from the improved heat dissipation qualities which in turn would decrease the chances of damage to the internal components of the apparatus.
Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trygubova (10,681,844) in further view of Stolz (6,226,184).
Regarding Claim 15: Trygubova teaches an electronic device (figs. 9-12) comprising: a base portion (204), the base portion comprising a top cover (figs. 9-12) and bottom cover (figs. 9-12); a circuit board (206) disposed in the base portion (figs. 9-12); an integrated circuit component (212) mounted on the circuit board (figs. 9-12); a heat sink (314) mounted on the integrated circuit component (figs. 9-12); and a spring (202-7) pressing against the bottom cover (figs. 9-12) and pressing the heat sink and the integrated circuit component together (figs. 9-12), but lacks a specific teaching of the electronic device being a laptop comprising a display portion.
Stolz teaches the electronic device being a laptop comprising a display portion (col. 1 lines 10-16, portable computer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Trygubova by having the electronic device being a laptop comprising a display portion as disclosed by Stolz in order to allow for a variability of the devices in which the user can benefit from the improved heat dissipation qualities which in turn would decrease the chances of damage to the internal components of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 16: Trygubova teaches wherein the spring is a leaf spring (fig. 9-12).
Regarding Claim 17: Trygubova teaches wherein the spring presses against the heat sink (figs. 9-12).
Regarding Claim 18: Trygubova teaches of wherein the circuit board (206) comprises a first side (fig. 9) and second side (fig. 9), wherein the integrated circuit (212) component is mounted on the first side of the circuit board (fig. 9), wherein the spring (202-7) presses against the second side of the circuit board (fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 19: Trygubova teaches wherein the spring does not require attachment holes passing through the circuit board (figs. 9-12).
Claim(s) 20-22, and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trygubova (10,681,844) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Guo (2022/0394875).
Regarding Claim 20: Trygubova teaches a compute device comprising: a chassis (204); a circuit board (206); an integrated circuit component (212) mounted on the circuit board (figs. 10-12); a heat sink (314) mounted on the integrated circuit component (figs. 10-12); and means for pressing the heat sink (310) and the integrated circuit component together (figs. 10-12), but lacks a specific teaching of wherein the means for pressing the heat sink and the integrated circuit component together comprises a foam strip.
Guo teaches means for pressing the heat sink (fig. 2) and the integrated circuit component (fig. 2) together comprises a foam strip (paragraphs [0009] and [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Trygubova by having the means for pressing the heat sink and the integrated circuit component together comprises a foam strip as disclosed by Guo in order to allow for a lighter weight component within the device while still holding the integrity of what is needed for the apparatus to function properly.
Regarding Claim 21: Trygubova teaches wherein the means for pressing the heat sink and the integrated circuit component together comprises a leaf spring (figs. 10-12).
Regarding Claim 22: Trygubova lacks a specific teaching of wherein the means for pressing the heat sink and the integrated circuit component together comprises a strip of foam.
Guo teaches the means for pressing the heat sink (fig. 2) and the integrated circuit component (fig. 2) together comprises a strip of foam (paragraphs [0009] and [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Trygubova by having the means for pressing the heat sink and the integrated circuit component together comprises a strip of foam as disclosed by Guo in order to allow for a lighter weight component within the device while still holding the integrity of what is needed for the apparatus to function properly.
Regarding Claim 25: Trygubova teaches wherein the means for pressing the heat sink and the integrated circuit component together does not pass through holes in the circuit board (figs. 10-12).
Regarding Claim 26: Trygubova teaches wherein the spring is in direct physical contact with the heat sink (figs. 10-12).
Regarding Claim 27: Trygubova teaches wherein the heat sink is not fastened to the circuit board (figs. 10-12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-7, filed 2/2/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-25 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Trygubova (10,681,844).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in the notice of references cited PTO-892 but not relied upon in the rejections above relate to the current application as they include the cooling of electronic components with multiple difference configurations of springs and heat dissipating components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY MICHAEL HAUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-9087. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/ANTHONY M HAUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights