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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6, 8-12 and 18-20 in the reply filed on 1/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “partitioning element” (540 shown in figure 5A is merely a dotted line; no clear structure is shown) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al. U.S. Patent 11,460,897 in view of Grossmann et al. U.S. Pub. 2022/0350382.
PNG
media_image1.png
580
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kulkarni et al. teaches a laptop arrangement comprising:
a chassis (120; figure 2A) defining a space (space inside 120) that is divided into a first compartment (see above annotated figure 2A) and a second compartment (see above annotated figure 2A), the first compartment comprising an air inlet (233; figure 2B) and the second compartment comprising an air outlet (231; figures 2A-2B).
However, Kulkarni et al. does not specifically teach a partitioning element positioned between the first and second compartments, wherein the partitioning element at least partially seals the first compartment from the second compartment and enables the second compartment to have a greater pressurization than the first compartment.
PNG
media_image2.png
652
782
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Grossmann et al. teaches a similar structure, which suggests a partitioning element (446f; figure 4F) positioned between a first compartment (see above annotated figure 4F) and a second compartment (see above annotated figure 4F), wherein the partitioning element (446f; figure 4F) at least partially seals (see par[0046]) the first compartment from the second compartment and enables the second compartment to have a greater pressurization (implicitly taught; when air is blown into the 2nd compartment => higher pressurization in the 2nd compartment) than the first compartment.
PNG
media_image1.png
580
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
652
782
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In figure 2A of Kulkarni et al., two fans (230) are positioned in the first compartment to blow air into the second compartment. The suggested partitioning element (446f; figure 4) of Grossmann et al. is also positioned between a first and a second compartment comprising a fan, wherein the partitioning element at least partially seals the first compartment from the second compartment.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify/provide the first compartment of Kulkarni et al. with a partitioning element positioned between the first and second compartments, wherein the partitioning element at least partially seals the first compartment from the second compartment and enables the second compartment to have a greater pressurization than the first compartment, as suggested by Grossmann et al., to optimize cooling capacity in the second compartment.
Regarding claim 2, Kulkarni et al. in view of Grossmann et al. teaches the laptop arrangement of claim 1, further comprising at least one fan (230; figure 2A of Kulkarni et al.), wherein the at least one fan is positioned in the first compartment.
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned above, Kulkarni et al. in view of Grossmann et al. teaches the laptop arrangement of claim 1.
Even though, Kulkarni et al. in view of Grossmann et al. wherein a thickness of the chassis is less than about 13 mm, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to derive such claimed thickness, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, to achieve desired thickness of said laptop. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Kulkarni et al. in view of Grossmann et al. teaches the laptop arrangement of claim 8, wherein approximately 50% (see figure 2B of Kulkarni et al.) of the thickness of the chassis accommodates the at least one fan.
Regarding claim 10, Kulkarni et al. in view of Grossmann et al. teaches the chassis of claim 8, wherein approximately 70% (see figure 2B of Kulkarni et al.) of the thickness of the chassis accommodates the at least one fan.
Regarding claim 11, the modification of Kulkarni et al. in view of Grossmann et al. would also result in the laptop arrangement of claim 1, wherein the partitioning element is an air seal gasket (see par[0046] of Grossmann et al.).
Regarding claim 12, Kulkarni et al. in view of Grossmann et al. also teaches the laptop arrangement of claim 1, further comprises a heat exchanger (225; figure 2A of Kulkarni et al.) positioned in the second compartment proximal to the air outlet.
Claims 1-6 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al. U.S. Patent 11,460,897 in view of Grossmann et al. U.S. Pub. 2022/0350382 and in further view of Atkinson et al. U.S. Pub. 2011/0251733.
Regarding claim 1, Atkinson et al. teaches a laptop arrangement (figure 2) comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
430
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a chassis (see above annotated figure 2) defining a space (space inside the chassis) that is divided into a first compartment (see above annotated figure 2) and a second compartment (see above annotated figure 2).
However, Atkinson et al. does not specifically teach the first compartment comprising an air inlet and the second compartment comprising an air outlet.
PNG
media_image4.png
594
700
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kulkarni et al., teaches a similar structure (120; figure 2A), which comprises a first compartment (see above annotated figure 2A) having an air inlet (233; figure 2B) and a second compartment (see above annotated figure 2A) comprising an air outlet (231; figure 2A). Kulkarni et al. also teaches two fans positioned in the first compartment for blowing air into the second compartment.
PNG
media_image5.png
452
558
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further equip the first compartment of Atkinson et al. with an air inlet and the second compartment with an air outlet, as suggested by Kulkarni et al., so that two fans could be provided in the first compartment as the locations shown in above figure 2 for intaking air from said air inlet for blowing air into the second compartment, such that hot air can exit through the air outlet, for cooling purpose.
However, Atkinson et al. does not specifically teach a partitioning element positioned between the first and second compartments, wherein the partitioning element at least partially seals the first compartment from the second compartment and enables the second compartment to have a greater pressurization than the first compartment.
PNG
media_image2.png
652
782
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Grossmann et al. teaches a similar structure, which suggests a partitioning element (446f; figure 4F) positioned between a first compartment (see above annotated figure 4F) and a second compartment (see above annotated figure 4F), wherein the partitioning element (446f; figure 4F) at least partially seals (see par[0046]) the first compartment from the second compartment and enables the second compartment to have a greater pressurization (implicitly taught; when air is blown into the 2nd compartment => higher pressurization in the 2nd compartment) than the first compartment.
As explained above, Atkinson et al. in view of Kulkarni et al. teaches two fans positioned in the first compartment to blow air into the second compartment. The suggested partitioning element (446f; figure 4) of Grossmann et al. is also positioned between a first and a second compartment comprising a fan, wherein the partitioning element at least partially seals the first compartment from the second compartment.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify/provide the first compartment of Atkinson et al./Kulkarni et al. with a partitioning element positioned between the first and second compartments, wherein the partitioning element at least partially seals the first compartment from the second compartment and enables the second compartment to have a greater pressurization than the first compartment, as suggested by Grossmann et al., to optimize cooling capacity in the second compartment.
Regarding claim 2, the modification of Atkinson et la. in view of Kulkarni et al. and Grossmann et al. would result in the laptop arrangement of claim 1, further comprising at least one fan (see above rejection of claim 1), wherein the at least one fan is positioned in the first compartment.
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned above, Atkinson et al. in view of Kulkarni et al. and Grossmann et al. teaches the laptop arrangement of claim 1, comprising a computing component (inherently taught).
Grossmann et al. further suggests a computing component (408; figure 4F) is positioned in the second compartment.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further position the computing component of Atkinson et al. in view of Kulkarni et al. and Grossmann et al. in the second compartment, as suggested by Grossmann et al., for optimal cooling purpose of said computing component.
Regarding claim 4, the modification of Atkinson et al. in view of Kulkarni et al. and Grossmann et al. would result in the laptop arrangement of claim 3, wherein the computing component is selected from the group consisting of a motherboard, a central processing unit (see par[0049] of Grossmann et al.; 408 is a central processing unit), a graphic processing unit, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 5, Atkinson et al. in view of Kulkarni et al. and Grossmann et al. teaches the laptop arrangement of claim 1, which further comprises a keyboard (54; figure 2 of Atkinson et al.), wherein the keyboard is positioned in the second compartment (see above annotated figure 2 of Atkinson et al.).
Regarding claim 6, the modification of Atkinson et al. in view of Kulkarni et al. and Grossmann et al. would result in the laptop arrangement of claim 2, wherein the at least one fan comprises two fans (see rejection of claim 1), and further comprising a touch pad (56; figure 2), wherein the touch pad is positioned in the first compartment and is interposed between (see figure 2 of Atkinson et al. and figure 2a of Kulkarni et al.) two fans.
Regarding claim 18, Atkinson et al. in view of Kulkarni et al. and Grossmann et al. teaches a chassis for a laptop computer, as claimed in claim 18, for the same reasons stated in the above rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Atkinson et la. in view of Kulkarni et al. and Grossmann et al. teaches the laptop arrangement of claim 18, further comprising at least one fan (see above rejection of claims 1 and 18), wherein the at least one fan is positioned in the first compartment.
Regarding claim 20, Atkinson et la. in view of Kulkarni et al. and Grossmann et al. teaches the chassis of claim 18.
Grossmann et al. further suggests a data processing unit (408; figure 4F) is positioned in the second compartment.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further provide and position a data computing unit of Atkinson et al. in view of Kulkarni et al. and Grossmann et al. in the second compartment, as suggested by Grossmann et al., for optimal cooling purpose of said data processing unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6PM..
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 N 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.
HUNG Q. DANG
Examiner
Art Unit 2835
/IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841