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 .
This communication is in response to the claim’s amendment dated 4/30/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Issues raised by the Applicant:
a. Kulkarni Does Not Teach or Suggest a Computing Component positioned Between a Fan and an Air Outlet in a Second Compartment. Kulkarni is directed to a laptop computer with a display-side cooling system in which the motherboard, CPU, GPU, heat sink, and cooling fans are all disposed in the display portion 120 of the laptop, rather than in the base portion. See Kulkarni, Title, Abstract, col. 4, 11. 8-21. The Examiner mapped the claimed first and second compartments to annotated regions within Kulkarni's display portion 120 (FIG. 2A), the air inlet to element 233, and the air outlet to element 231.
Amended claim 1 requires "a computing component positioned in the second compartment between the at least one fan and the air outlet." In Kulkarni's FIG. 2A, the fans 230 are positioned on opposite lateral sides of display portion 120, with the heat exchanger fins 225 and air outlets 231 positioned between the two fans. The CPU 242 and GPU 243 are positioned centrally below the fans and the heat exchanger region, not in a second compartment between a fan in a first compartment and the air outlet. Furthermore, Kulkarni's computing components are in the display portion, while the Examiner's annotated compartments are in the base portion. Kulkarni therefore does not teach or suggest a computing component positioned in the second compartment between the at least one fan and the air outlet.
b. Amended claim 1 further requires that the air inlet be "defined in one of the top surface and the bottom surface of the chassis" and that the air outlet be "defined in the side surface of the chassis." In Kulkarni, the air inlets 233 are disposed on the base portion, and the air outlets 231 are disposed on the top surface of the display portion housing 201 facing upward and/or backward.
c. Amended claim 1 further requires "at least one fan positioned in the first compartment, the at least one fan having a rotational axis oriented perpendicular to the top surface of the chassis." While Kulkarni's fans 230 may have perpendicular rotational axes, these fans are in the display portion, not in a first compartment of a chassis that also includes a second compartment with a computing component positioned between the fan and an air outlet. Kulkarni therefore does not teach the claimed spatial arrangement of the fan in the first compartment.
d. Rejection of Claims 1-6 and 18-20 Over Kulkarni in View of Grossmann and Further in View of Atkinson Claims 1-6 and 18-20 were rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni in view of Grossmann and further in view of Atkinson et al. (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2011/0251733). Claims 18, 19, and 20 have been cancelled. With respect to the remaining claims, Applicant respectfully traverses.
Atkinson is directed to a system for adjusting a cooling temperature threshold based on human proximity detection. Atkinson teaches a conventional laptop computer (FIG. 2) having a base 52 with a keyboard 54, touchpad 56, and various proximity and temperature sensors. Atkinson does not teach or suggest a chassis divided into a first compartment and a second compartment, a fan positioned in a first compartment with a rotational axis perpendicular to a top surface of the chassis, or a computing component positioned in a second compartment between the fan and an air outlet defined in a side surface of the chassis.
The rejection relied on Atkinson for the general laptop arrangement, and on Kulkarni and Grossmann for the thermal and airflow features. As explained in Section IV.B above, the combination of Kulkarni and Grossmann does not teach or suggest the structural features recited in amended claim 1. The addition of Atkinson, which teaches only a conventional laptop chassis with proximity-based thermal management, does not cure these deficiencies.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 is not rendered obvious by Kulkarni in view of Grossmann and further in view of Atkinson, and respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection. Claims 4-6, which depend from amended claim 1, are likewise patentable for at least the same reasons as claim 1, in addition to the features recited therein.
The Examiner’s position:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. The Examiner would like to point out that claim 1 requires a chassis, a first compartment and a second compartment. Claim 1 does not specify whether the chassis is a display or the base portion of a laptop. The Applicant argues “…while the Examiner's annotated compartments are in the base portion”. The Examiner disagrees. The annotated compartments are in the chassis (display). The Examiner now uses figure 3 of Kulkarni as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
535
609
media_image1.png
Greyscale
From above annotated figure 3, the Examiner maintains Kulkarni teaches the claimed limitation of claim 1.
b. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant for the same reasons stated above part (a).
c. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. Based on figure 5A of the current Application, the first compartment 520 and the second compartment 522 are located in the same chassis, which is equivalent to the 1st/2nd compartments shown in above annotated figure 3 of Kulkarni.
d. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. Again, based on figure 5A of the current Application, the first compartment 520 and the second compartment 522 are located in the same chassis, which is equivalent to the 1st/2nd compartments shown in above annotated figure 3 of Kulkarni.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kulkarni et al. U.S. Patent 11,460,897.
PNG
media_image1.png
535
609
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kulkarni et al. teaches a laptop arrangement comprising:
a chassis (120; figure 2A) having a top surface (top surface of 201; figures 2A-B), a bottom surface (bottom surface of 201; figures 2A-B) opposite (see figures 2A-B) the top surface, and a side surface (side surface of 201; figures 2A-B) extending between (see figures 2A-B) the top surface and the bottom surface, the chassis defining a space (space inside 120) that is divided into a first compartment (see above annotated figure 3) and a second compartment (see above annotated figure 3), the first compartment comprising an air inlet (233; figure 2B) defined in one of the top surface and the bottom surface of the chassis,
the second compartment comprising an air outlet (231; figures 2A-2B and figure 3) defined in the side surface of the chassis;
at least one fan (230; figure 2A) positioned in the first compartment, the at least one fan (230) having a rotational axis oriented perpendicular (implicitly taught in figure 2A) to the top surface of the chassis; and a computing component (242; figure 3) positioned in the second compartment between the at least one fan and the air outlet.
Regarding claim 12, Kulkarni et al. also teaches the laptop arrangement of claim 1, further comprising a heat exchanger (225; figure 2A of Kulkarni et al.) positioned in the second compartment proximal to the air outlet.
Regarding claim 22, Kulkarni et al. teaches the laptop arrangement of claim 1, further comprising a heat exchanger (324; figure 3) positioned in the second compartment between the computing component and the air outlet.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al. U.S. Patent 11,460,897.
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned above, Kulkarni 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. 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. teaches the laptop arrangement 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.
Claims 1-6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkinson et al. U.S. Pub. 2011/0251733 in view of Kulkarni et al. U.S. Patent 11,460,897.
Regarding claim 1, Atkinson et al. teaches a laptop arrangement (figure 2) comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
452
558
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a chassis (see above annotated figure 2) having a top surface, a bottom surface opposite the top surface, and a side surface extending between the top surface and the bottom surface, the chassis 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 defined in one of the top surface and the bottom surface of the chassis,
the second compartment comprising an air outlet defined in the side surface of the chassis;
at least one fan positioned in the first compartment, the at least one fan having a rotational axis oriented perpendicular to the top surface of the chassis; and a computing component positioned in the second compartment between the at least one fan and the air outlet.
PNG
media_image1.png
535
609
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kulkarni et al., teaches a similar structure (120; figure 2A), which comprises
the first compartment comprising an air inlet (233; figure 2B) defined in one of the top surface and the bottom surface of the chassis,
the second compartment comprising an air outlet (231; figures 2A-2B and figure 3) defined in the side surface of the chassis;
at least one fan (230; figure 2A) positioned in the first compartment, the at least one fan (230) having a rotational axis oriented perpendicular (implicitly taught in figure 2A) to the top surface of the chassis; and a computing component (242; figure 3) positioned in the second compartment between the at least one fan and the air outlet.
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 the first compartment comprising an air inlet defined in one of the top surface and the bottom surface of the chassis,
the second compartment comprising an air outlet defined in the side surface of the chassis;
at least one fan positioned in the first compartment, the at least one fan having a rotational axis oriented perpendicular to the top surface of the chassis; and a computing component positioned in the second compartment between the at least one fan and the 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.
Regarding claim 2, the modification of Atkinson et la. in view of Kulkarni 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 4, the modification of Atkinson et al. in view of Kulkarni et al. would result in the laptop arrangement of claim 1, 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. 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. would result in the laptop arrangement of claim 1, 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.) the two fans.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkinson et al. U.S. Pub. 2011/0251733 in view of Kulkarni et al. U.S. Patent 11,460,897 and in further view of Grossmann et al. U.S. Patent 11,927,996.
Regarding claim 21, Atkinson et al. in view of Kulkarni et al. would result in the laptop arrangement of claim 1, further comprising a battery pack (27; figure 1 of Atkinson et al.); and a touch pad (56; figure 2 of Atkinson et al.) positioned in the first compartment.
However, Atkinson et al. in view of Kulkarni et al. does not specifically teach wherein the touch pad vertically overlaps with the battery pack.
Grossmann et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches a laptop arrangement (see below figure 4A), which suggests a battery pack (405; figure 4A) to be positioned at the front side (402a; figure 4A) of the chassis of the laptop.
PNG
media_image3.png
616
838
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
440
598
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Atkinson et al. also shows touch pad 56 positioned at the front side of the laptop chassis. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the touch pad to vertically overlaps with the battery pack of Atkinson et al., as suggested by Grossmann et al., to optimize space, as needed.
Conclusion
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 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 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights