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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weber (US 5335147 A).
As to claims 1 and 15, Weber discloses: A device (Fig 2-4) comprising:
a circuit board 22;
a cover 34 attached to the circuit board, the cover having a first side, a second side, and a top 36, the top extending between the first and second sides (first and second sides are opposite sides 38 and 42 or 40 and 44), the first side contacting a major surface 24 of the circuit board adjacent to and along a first edge of the circuit board, the second side contacting the major surface of the circuit board adjacent to and along a second edge of the circuit board, the first edge being opposite to the second edge; and
one or more posts 58 directly affixed to the major surface 24 of the circuit board (see Fig. 2-4, when the device is fully assembled, a lower surface of each of the posts 58 is directly affixed to the major surface 24 of the circuit board 22 by the screws 52) and offset (see corresponding holes 56) from the first edge and the second edge of the circuit board,
wherein the one or more posts are to directly connect to the first side and the second side of the cover via one or more fasteners (mounted into holes 60 via protrusion of block 58), and
wherein the one or more posts, upon directly connecting to the first side and the second side of the cover, reside inside the cover (see Fig. 2-4).
As to claim 19, the products of claims 1 and 15 above inherently necessitate the method of claim 19.
Examiner’s Note: regarding claim 19, since there are no specific method steps being claimed, just a general process of assembling of the device (i.e., providing each element, connecting, etc.), the fact that the structure of the device of the present invention is anticipated by Weber means that the general method for providing such a structure is also inherently anticipated by the same reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10, 12, 15-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malone (US 20070091564 A1) in view of Weber (US 5335147 A).
As to claims 1 and 15, Malone discloses: A device (cooling apparatus 100, 200 - Fig. 1A-6B; par. 0014) comprising:
a circuit board 104, 204 (the printed circuit board 104, 204 - Fig. 1A-6B; par. 0014-0018); and
a cover 106, 214 attached to the circuit board, the cover having a first side, a second side, and a top, the top extending between the first and second sides, the first side contacting a major surface (top surface) of the circuit board adjacent to and along (near and parallel to) a first edge of the circuit board, the second side contacting the major surface of the circuit board adjacent to and along (near and parallel to) a second edge of the circuit board, the first edge being opposite to the second edge (the C-shaped air duct 106, 214 has two sides and a top extending between the sides, and the first and second contacting the circuit board 104, 204 on opposing sides - Fig. 1A-3C; par. 0014-0019).
Malone does not explicitly disclose:
one or more posts directly affixed to the major surface of the circuit board and offset from the first edge and the second edge of the circuit board,
wherein the one or more posts are to directly connect to the first side and the second side of the cover via one or more fasteners, and
wherein the one or more posts, upon directly connecting to the first side and the second side of the cover, reside inside the cover.
However, Weber discloses:
one or more posts 58 directly affixed to the major surface 24 of the circuit board 22 (see Fig. 2-4, when the device is fully assembled, a lower surface of each of the posts 58 is directly affixed to the major surface 24 of the circuit board 22 by the screws 52) and offset (see corresponding holes 56) from the first edge and the second edge of the circuit board,
wherein the one or more posts are to directly connect to the first side and the second side of the cover 34 via one or more fasteners (mounted into holes 60 via protrusion of block 58), and
wherein the one or more posts, upon directly connecting to the first side and the second side of the cover, reside inside the cover (see Fig. 2-4);
in order to mount the cover to the circuit board (col. 3, lines 35-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Malone as suggested by Weber, e.g., providing:
one or more posts directly affixed to the major surface of the circuit board and offset from the first edge and the second edge of the circuit board,
wherein the one or more posts are to directly connect to the first side and the second side of the cover via one or more fasteners, and
wherein the one or more posts, upon directly connecting to the first side and the second side of the cover, reside inside the cover;
in order to mount the cover to the circuit board.
Additionally, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to claim 2, Malone in view of Weber discloses: wherein the circuit board and the cover form an air duct (see 108, 208; Malone) having an inlet at a first end of the device and defining air flow direction along the length of the circuit board (direction of arrow 108 in Fig. 1A, into the page in Fig. 2A-2B; Malone).
As to claim 4, Malone in view of Weber discloses: further comprising a panel (any or all of top panel, slanted panel, straight side panel terminating at rear outlet, and/or foam strips 226; Figures 1A-6B; Malone) at a second end (e.g., at 224 in Fig. 2, corresponding end in other Figures 1A-6B) of the device, the panel including one or more openings creating an outlet of the air duct (opening(s) correspond to the outlets of each of the air ducts in Fig. 1A-6B; Malone).
As to claims 5 and 16, Malone in view of Weber discloses:
wherein each of the first side and the second side of the cover has an/the edge that is straight (both sides of 106 that make contact with the circuit board 104 in Fig. 1A-1B have straight bottom edges that make direct contact with the top surface of the circuit board; Malone) and that is in direct contact (par. 0015; Malone) with the major surface of the circuit board, and wherein the direct contact enables control of a flatness of the circuit board and stiffness of the circuit board along a length of the device (106 may be constructed from sheet metal, which will reinforce the flatness/stiffness of the circuit board; par. 0015; Malone).
It has been held by the courts that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
It has also been held that the recitation that an element is "capable of" performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
Further, Applicant is advised that a recitation of the intended use of an invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case, the structure of Malone in view of Weber is considered capable of performing the cited intended use.
As to claims 8 and 17, Malone in view of Weber discloses:
wherein the cover comprises one or more bends (bends/corners at straight walls sidewalls in Fig. 1A-1B; Malone) extending along a length of the cover (extend in the direction of airflow) and comprises a predetermined thickness (inherently some thickness), the bends and the predetermined thickness to limit bending along a length of the circuit board and to limit warping or twisting along a width and height of the circuit board, wherein the limit to the bending and to the warping or twisting is within a predetermined bending, warping, or twisting that damages the circuit board (intended use - a sheet metal air duct, par. 0015, is understood to reinforce the circuit board when mounted, preventing/limiting bending, warping, twisting, etc.)
See intended use above. In this case, the structure of Malone in view of Weber is considered capable of performing the cited intended use.
As to claim 10, Malone in view of Weber discloses:
one or more cutouts shaped (internal space of cover after cutting, bending, or otherwise forming the structure, open underside of 106, 214; Malone) and positioned to accommodate and secure an electronic component 228 within the device (the electronic components 228 are mounted on the circuit board 104, 204 and there are openings or cutouts at the front and back side to accommodate the components 228 and the top portion protects and secures the components 228 - Fig. 1A-6B; par. 0018).
As to claim 12, Malone in view of Weber discloses:
channels formed between the cover and the circuit board (e.g., between the components 228, above the components 228; Fig. 1A-6B of Malone); and
a blower fan 1210, 610 (Fig. 1A-6B of Malone) to channel air flow through the channels.
As to claim 19, the products of claims 1 and 15 above inherently necessitate the method of claim 19.
As to claim 20, the products of claims 5 and 16 above inherently necessitate the method of claim 20.
Examiner’s Note: regarding claims 19-20, since there are no specific method steps being claimed, just a general process of assembling of the device (i.e., providing each element, connecting, etc.), the fact that the structure of the device of the present invention is unpatentable over Malone in view of Weber means that the general method for providing such a structure is also inherently unpatentable over the same combination.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malone (US 20070091564 A1) in view of Weber (US 5335147 A) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yang (US 20160192538 A1).
As to claim 3, Malone in view of Weber discloses:
an electronic component mounted on the circuit board (the electronic components 228 are mounted on the circuit board 204 - Fig. 1A-6B; par. 0018-0020; Malone).
Malone in view of Weber does not explicitly disclose:
a heat spreader mounted on the electronic component and having fins extending into the air duct, the fins being separated by gaps extending along the air flow direction.
However, Yang discloses:
an electronic component 23 (par. 0014; Fig. 1, 4, 5) mounted on the circuit board 20 (par. 0013); and
a heat spreader 40 mounted on the electronic component and having fins extending into the air duct 60, the fins being separated by gaps extending along the air flow direction (see Fig. 1, 5);
in order to dissipate heat from an electronic component in an air duct (par. 0016, 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Malone and Weber as suggested by Yang, e.g., providing:
a heat spreader mounted on the electronic component and having fins extending into the air duct, the fins being separated by gaps extending along the air flow direction;
in order to dissipate heat from an electronic component in an air duct.
Additionally, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 6 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malone (US 20070091564 A1) in view of Weber (US 5335147 A) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Duncan (US 5590028 A).
As to claims 6 and 13, Malone in view of Weber does not explicitly disclose:
a socket on the circuit board; and
an electronic component plugged into the socket, a distance between the top of the cover and the socket being insufficient to permit removal/dislodging of the electronic component from the socket while the cover is attached to the circuit board.
However, Duncan discloses:
a socket 90 (Fig. 1-8) on the circuit board 14; and
an electronic component 70 (battery) plugged into the socket (Fig. 6-8), a distance between the top of the cover 10 and the socket being insufficient to permit removal of the electronic component from the socket while the cover is attached to the circuit board (see Fig. 6);
in order to provide the circuit board/memory card with a power source (claim 1) and the battery positioned between the circuit board and a terminal connected to the coverplate (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Malone and Weber as suggested by Duncan, e.g., providing:
a socket on the circuit board; and
an electronic component plugged into the socket, a distance between the top of the cover and the socket being insufficient to permit removal/dislodging of the electronic component from the socket while the cover is attached to the circuit board;
in order to provide the circuit board/memory card with a power source and the battery positioned between the circuit board and a terminal connected to the cover.
Additionally, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to claim 14, the obvious modification of Malone and Weber in view of Duncan discloses:
wherein the electronic component comprises one of a memory module and a battery unit 70 (Fig. 6, 8; see claim 1, Abstract; Duncan).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malone (US 20070091564 A1) in view of Weber (US 5335147 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin (US 10488892 B1).
As to claim 7, the obvious modification of Malone in view of Weber does not disclose:
wherein the posts comprise openings which extend parallel to the major surface of the circuit board to accept the fasteners.
However, Lin suggests:
posts (see annotated Fig. 6 below), wherein the posts comprise openings (corresponding to fasteners 626) which extend parallel to the major surface of the circuit board 616, 634 to accept the fasteners 626 (see col. 11, lines 37-46);
in order to fasten a sidewall of the cover 618 to the posts (see Fig. 6; col. 11, lines 37-46).
PNG
media_image1.png
1364
1054
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Malone and Weber as suggested by Lin, e.g., providing:
wherein the posts comprise openings which extend parallel to the major surface of the circuit board to accept the fasteners;
in order to fasten sidewalls of the cover of Malone to the posts of Weber.
It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention (e.g., rearranging the position/orientation of attachment to the posts) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Additionally, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malone (US 20070091564 A1) in view of Weber (US 5335147 A) as applied to claims 8 and 17 above, and further in view of Senatori (US 8189331 B2).
As to claims 9 and 18, the obvious modification of Malone in view of Weber does not disclose:
wherein the one or more bends comprise first and second bends between the first side and the top and comprise third and fourth bends between the second side and the top, and wherein the first and second bends and the third and fourth bends are individual bends of less than 90°.
However, Senatori discloses an air-guiding cover 120 (Fig. 1-3);
wherein the one or more bends (left and right sides in Fig. 1) comprise first and second bends between the first side (e.g., left side) and the top (bottom in Fig. 1-2E) and comprise third and fourth bends between the second side (e.g., right side) and the top (bottom in Fig. 1-2E), and wherein the first and second bends and the third and fourth bends are individual bends of less than 90° (the compound bends form a total of 90°);
in order to provide a desired shaped surface/enclosure (col. 2, lines 21-30; col. 3, lines 25-36) and/or guide fluid flow (col. 2, lines 36-52; col. 3, line 54 – col. 4, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Malone and Weber as suggested by Senatori, e.g., providing compound bends along the sides of the cover of Malone:
wherein the one or more bends comprise first and second bends between the first side and the top and comprise third and fourth bends between the second side and the top, and wherein the first and second bends and the third and fourth bends are individual bends of less than 90°;
in order to provide a desired shaped surface/enclosure and/or guide fluid flow; and/or since there is no evidence that the change in shape is significant.
A change in shape, absent persuasive evidence that the change in shape is significant, is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malone (US 20070091564 A1) in view of Weber (US 5335147 A) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Duncan (US 5590028 A).
As to claim 11, the obvious modification of Malone in view of Weber does not disclose:
wherein the electronic component comprises a battery unit.
However, Duncan discloses:
wherein the electronic component 70 (battery; Fig. 1-8) comprises a battery unit 70 (Fig. 6, 8; see claim 1, Abstract; Duncan);
in order to provide the circuit board/memory card with a power source (claim 1) and the battery positioned between the circuit board and a terminal connected to the coverplate (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Malone and Weber as suggested by Duncan, e.g., providing:
wherein the electronic component comprises a battery unit;
in order to provide the circuit board/memory card with a power source and the battery positioned between the circuit board and a terminal connected to the cover.
Additionally, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claimed Elements Not Taught
Applicant has suggested that Weber does not disclose “one or more posts directly affixed to the major surface of the circuit board” (Remarks, p. 8) because the posts 58 are affixed to the cover 34 before they are screwed to the circuit board.
In response, Examiner notes that the claims do not recite the order of assembly, or the means by which the posts are directly affixed to the major surface of the circuit board (e.g., by gluing, injection molding, fasteners, etc.). Examiner has clarified that when the device of Weber is fully assembled, the posts 58 are directly affixed to the cover 34, and the posts 58 are directly affixed to the major surface 24 of the circuit board 22 by the screw fasteners 52.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 JACOB R CRUM whose telephone number is (571)270-7665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached on (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.
/JACOB R CRUM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835