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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou (U.S. Patent 10,153,226) in view of Fan et al. (U.S. PGPub 2019/0104641) and Huang (U.S. Patent 11,073,648).
Regarding 1, Zou teaches a water-cooling heat dissipator (fig. 1-4), comprising: a water-cooling head (element 30) , comprising a main body (structure of 30), a water inlet joint (element 313) communicating with the main body and a water outlet joint (element 313) communicating with main body, wherein the main body comprises a first connector (left element 70); a fan module (element 20), disposed on the water-cooling head and comprising a base (backside of element 20) and a fan (element 60), wherein the base is stacked on the main body (per fig. 104; note that the orientation of the drawing does not limit the use/application of the device per col. 3, ln 44-65 thus the orientation requirement of “stacked” is taught, note if applicant meant in manufacturing that is product-by-process and “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).) and comprises a second connector (right element 70) electrically connected to the first connector and the fan (col. 6, ln 57-64, reads on this reasonably as the exact electrical connection or connector is not specified), the fan is connected to the base (per fig. 1-4) and comprises a fan disposed outside the main body (per fig. 1-4).
Zou does not specifically teach a fan wheel, but such is well known in the art (see Fan) and it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to have the fan of Zou have a fan wheel, the motivation would be to use well-known and readily available technology.
Zou does not teach at least one of a light emitting member and a fan member disposed on the fan module. Huang teaches a light emitting member (element 1) disposed on the fan module (element 201). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Zou to include the light of Huang as claimed, the motivation would be to achieving lighting and visual effects (col. 1, ln 23-26).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou (U.S. Patent 10,153,226) in view of Fan et al. (U.S. PGPub 2019/0104641) and Huang (U.S. Patent 11,073,648), and further in view of Gough et al. (U.S. PGPub 2003/0228840).
Regarding claim 9, Zou does not tach wherein the base comprises a plurality of mounting plates and a plurality of positioning slots, the main body comprises a plurality of mounting slots and a plurality of positioning pieces, each of the mounting plates is correspondingly mounted in each of the mounting slots, and each of the positioning pieces is accommodated in each of the positioning slots. The use of mounting plates (tabs) and slots for positioning and mounting of elements is well known in the art (see Gough). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Zou to include plates and slots as claimed, the motivation would be to mount the fan using known and readily available technology.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No prior art was found that taught or made obvious a fan attached to the fan on such a structure (per claims 5-6); the rotating fan as claimed is not taught or obvious modification to this art (claim 8); the connector with boards as claimed is not taught or obvious to this prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specific arguments are addressed below.
Applicants’ argument that the prior art does not teach the amended claim 1 is not persuasive. As the rejection above shows the prior art teaches a light emitting module disposable as and obviously combinable per the rejection above. Examiner notes that the amendment of claim 1 requires only either the light emitting module or the fan member thus not reading on the allowable subject matter previously noted.
The examiner notes that the amendments have overcome the prior 112(b) rejections.
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 JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson be reached on (571) 270-7740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763