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 .
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) 8-12 and 14-16 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (2014/0097728).
Regarding Claim 8: Yang teaches a method of manufacturing a computing device, comprising: determining a natural vibration frequency of a computing component (14) secured to a base (11), the computing component extending upwards from the base (14 extending upward shown in fig. 2); based on the natural vibration frequency (paragraph [0023]), determining a tuning frequency of a tuned mass dampener (70 and paragraph [0023]), wherein the tuning frequency is within a frequency percentage of the natural vibration frequency based at least in part on a manufacturing tolerance of the computing component (paragraph [0026]); preparing the tuned mass dampener having the tuning frequency (paragraph [0023]); and securing the tuned mass dampener directly to the base if the computing device (fig. 2, wherein 70 being the tuned mass dampener includes 12 and 60 which directly connects to base 11).
Regarding Claim 9: Yang teaches wherein determining the tuning frequency includes determining a support height, a support width, and a mass of a vibrating mass (paragraphs [0023], [0026], [0033], and [0034]).
Regarding Claim 10: Yang teaches wherein preparing the tuned mass dampener includes preparing the tuned mass dampener having the support height, the support width, and the mass of the vibrating mass (paragraphs [0023], [0026], [0033], and [0034]).
Regarding Claim 11: Yang teaches wherein determining the natural vibration frequency includes determining a threshold displacement, and wherein determining the tuning frequency includes determining a support height, a support width, and a mass of a vibrating mass to reduce a magnitude of a displacement of the computing component to below a threshold displacement (paragraphs [0023], [0026], [0033], and [0034]).
Regarding Claim 12: Yang teaches wherein securing the tuned mass dampener to the computing device includes securing the tuned mass dampener to a base of the computing device removed from the computing component (paragraphs [0023], [0026], [0033], and [0034]).
Regarding Claim 14: Yang teaches further comprising determining an operating vibration frequency (paragraphs [0023], [0026], [0033], and [0034]).
Regarding Claim 15: Yang teaches wherein preparing the tuned mass dampener includes preparing the tuned mass dampener when the operating vibration frequency overlaps the natural vibration frequency (paragraphs [0023], [0026], [0033], and [0034]).
Regarding Claim 16: Yang teaches wherein determining the natural vibration frequency includes modeling the natural vibration frequency in a vibration model (paragraphs [0023], [0026], [0033], and [0034]).
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (2014/0097728) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Bernett (4,924,976).
Regarding Claim 13: Yang lacks a specific teaching of wherein securing the tuned mass dampener to the base of the computing device includes securing the tuned mass dampener to the base within heat radiation fins of a thermal management device.
Bernett teaches wherein securing the tuned mass dampener to the base of the computing device includes securing the tuned mass dampener to the base within heat radiation fins of a thermal management device (col. 3 line 62 – col. 4 line 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Yang by having wherein securing the tuned mass dampener to the base of the computing device includes securing the tuned mass dampener to the base within heat radiation fins of a thermal management device as disclosed by Bernett in order to allow for the ability of the system to balance vibration while also managing the heat dissipation which in turn would decrease the chances of damage to the system due to overheating of the components.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (2014/0097728) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Ryaboy (2006/0119026).
Regarding Claim 17: Yang lacks a specific teaching of wherein determining the natural vibration frequency includes testing a sample computing device using one or more vibration sensors.
Ryaboy teaches wherein determining the natural vibration frequency includes testing a sample computing device using one or more vibration sensors (paragraphs [0008]-[0009]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Yang by having wherein determining the natural vibration frequency includes testing a sample computing device using one or more vibration sensors as disclosed by Ryaboy in order to allow for a more accurate reading of the actual vibrational output which allows for a more accurate dampening balance of the vibration which decreases the chance of damage to the internal components of the apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to the applicant’s arguments the rejection above has been slightly modified to express the claim amendments using the previous art of Yang (2014/0097728). The mass dampener as described in the specification of the prior art includes element 70 which is both 60 and 12 together and as shown that portion 70 is directly attached to the base 11. As for the tuning frequency being based on manufacturing tolerances described in paragraph [0026] of the prior art which describes the suppression function of the suppression casing 70 which needs to be based upon manufacturing tolerances of the device which can cause the noise to be louder wherein the suppression unit would need to counter act that.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any known and cited prior art not relied upon for the rejections are related to vibration suppression devices with electronic devices.
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