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 .
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 "heat generating components" of claim 10 and "heat generating electrical components" of claim 19 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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamezaki et al. (US 2023/0389221 A1) in view of Gehring et al. (US 2004/0152411 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kamezaki discloses a device (Kamezaki 1) comprising:
A housing (Kamezaki 11) comprising:
A first side (Kamezaki 45);
A second side (Kamezaki 41) opposite the first side (see Kamezaki figure 3);
At least one sidewall (Kamezaki 42) extending between the first side and the second side (see Kamezaki figure 3);
A vent (Kamezaki 421),
Wherein the vent defines an opening (see Kamezaki figure 4) extending through the at least one sidewall placing an interior chamber of the device in fluid communication with an exterior region (see Kamezaki figure 3);
An arc (Kamezaki 411);
Wherein an air flow produced by a fan located in the interior chamber is directed towards the vent in a first direction (Kamezaki [0039]), and the arc acts to raise a direction of the air flow upward in a second direction towards a plane of the first side as the air flow exits the vent (see Kamezaki figure 3).
Kamezaki is silent regarding ribs extending across the length of the vent.
However, Gehring teaches an air outlet for a vehicle (Gehring 10) comprising a plurality of horizontal ribs (Gehring 29) for guiding airflow out of the air outlet.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kamezaki’s device to incorporate Gehring’s teachings of horizontal ribs in an outlet vent to better guide airflow in the desired direction.
Regarding claim 5, Kamezaki and Gehring as applied to claim 1 teaches the at least one sidewall comprises a plurality of sidewalls (see Kamezaki figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Kamezaki and Gehring as applied to claim 1 teach the vent extends in a horizontal direction relative to the first and second sides (see Kamezaki figure 4).
Regarding claim 7, Kamezaki and Gehring as applied to claim 1 are silent regarding if the ribs are integrally formed with the sidewall and vent.
However, a court has held that one piece construction is an obvious matter of engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device by making the ribs integrally formed with the sidewall and vent to simplify manufacturing and assembly of the device.
Regarding claim 8, Kamezaki and Gehring as applied to claim 1 teach the second direction is not parallel to the first direction (see Kamezaki figure 3).
Regarding claim 9, Kamezaki and Gehring as applied to claim 1 teach the housing is configured to be positioned on an external surface such that the second side (Kamezaki 41) is adjacent to the external surface (see Kamezaki figure 2 where a foot is shown underneath the second surface).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamezaki et al. (US 2023/0389221 A1) in view of Gehring et al. (US 2004/0152411 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakakibara (US 2010/0011799 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kamezaki and Gehring as applied to claim 1 are silent regarding a ramp.
However, Sakakibara teaches an air outlet designed to produce a thin air outlet while allowing sufficient airflow volume and directivity (Sakakibara [0005]) that comprises a ramp (Sakakibara 26A) that defines a sloping transition to an arc (see Sakakibara figure 3) along a bottom surface of an interior chamber (see Sakakibara figure 3) to enable airflow to interact with the arc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kamezaki’s device to incorporate Sakakibara’s teachings of utilizing a ramp within an airflow passageway to produce a predictable result of widening the airflow path to before the outlet to provide an outlet capable of sufficient airflow volume out while keeping the outlet thin.
Regarding claim 3, Kamezaki, Gehring, and Sakakibara as applied to claim 2 teach the ramp aligns with the arc to form a continuously sloping transition (see Sakakibara figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, Kamezaki and Gehring as applied to claim 1 are silent regarding a chamfer located adjacent the vent opening.
However, Sakakibara teaches an air outlet designed to produce a thin air outlet while allowing sufficient airflow volume and directivity (Sakakibara [0005]) that comprises a chamfer at the upper edge (see Sakakibara figure 3) to enable airflow to be directed upward out of the vent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kamezaki’s device to incorporate Sakakibara’s teachings of a chamfered upper edge on a vent to produce a predictable result of allowing upward airflow out of the vent.
Claim(s) 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamezaki et al. (US 2023/0389221 A1) in view of Gehring et al. (US 2004/0152411 A1) and Sakakibara (US 2010/0011799 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kamezaki discloses an air flow direction control system for a device having a housing (Kamezaki 11), a fan (Kamezaki 12), and one or more heat generating components (Kamezaki [0046]; Examiner notes heat generating components must exist to heat the heated exhaust) being cooled by the fan, the exhaust air flow direction control system comprising:
A vent (Kamezaki 421),
Wherein the vent defines an opening (see Kamezaki figure 4) extending through the at least one sidewall placing an interior chamber of the device in fluid communication with an exterior region (see Kamezaki figure 3);
An arc (Kamezaki 411);
Wherein the arc is located between the vent and the interior chamber of the device (see Kamezaki figure 3);
Wherein the fan directs airflow towards the vent in a first direction (Kamezaki [0039]), and the arc acts to raise a direction of the air flow upward in a second direction towards a plane of the first side as the air flow exits the vent (see Kamezaki figure 3).
Kamezaki is silent regarding ribs and a ramp.
However, Gehring teaches an air outlet for a vehicle (Gehring 10) comprising a plurality of horizontal ribs (Gehring 29) for guiding airflow out of the air outlet.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kamezaki’s device to incorporate Gehring’s teachings of horizontal ribs in an outlet vent to better guide airflow in the desired direction.
However, Sakakibara teaches an air outlet designed to produce a thin air outlet while allowing sufficient airflow volume and directivity (Sakakibara [0005]) that comprises a ramp (Sakakibara 26A) that defines a sloping transition to an arc (see Sakakibara figure 3) along a bottom surface of an interior chamber (see Sakakibara figure 3) to enable airflow to interact with the arc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kamezaki’s device to incorporate Sakakibara’s teachings of utilizing a ramp within an airflow passageway to produce a predictable result of widening the airflow path to before the outlet to provide an outlet capable of sufficient airflow volume out while keeping the outlet thin.
Regarding claim 11, Kamezaki, Gehring, and Sakakibara as applied to claim 10 teach the ramp aligns with the arc to form a continuously sloping transition (see Sakakibara figure 3) to enable an airflow in a first direction to interact with the arc and rise in the second direction towards the plurality of ribs and the plane of the first side (see Sakakibara figure 3).
Regarding claim 12, Kamezaki, Gehring, and Sakakibara as applied to claim 10 teach the arc is integrally formed with the vent at the at least one sidewall (see Kamezaki figure 3).
Regarding claim 13, Kamezaki, Gehring, and Sakakibara as applied to claim 10 are silent regarding a chamfer located adjacent the vent opening.
However, Sakakibara further teaches an air outlet designed to produce a thin air outlet while allowing sufficient airflow volume and directivity (Sakakibara [0005]) that comprises a chamfer at the upper edge (see Sakakibara figure 3) to enable airflow to be directed upward out of the vent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kamezaki’s device to incorporate Sakakibara’s teachings of a chamfered upper edge on a vent to produce a predictable result of allowing upward airflow out of the vent.
Regarding claim 14, Kamezaki, Gehring, and Sakakibara as applied to claim 10 are silent regarding the sidewall being angled outward such that the area defined by the first side is greater than the area defined by the second side.
However, a court has held that a change in shape is obvious absent evident that the particular claimed configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kamezaki’s system to make the first surface larger than the second surface and angle the sidewall to create a housing shape that aligns with the shape of the components contained within.
Regarding claim 15, Kamezaki, Gehring, and Sakakibara as applied to claim 10 teach the vent extends in a horizontal direction relative to the first and second sides (see Kamezaki figure 4).
Regarding claim 16, Kamezaki, Gehring, and Sakakibara as applied to claim 10 are silent regarding if the ribs are integrally formed with the sidewall and vent.
However, a court has held that one piece construction is an obvious matter of engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device by making the ribs integrally formed with the sidewall and vent to simplify manufacturing and assembly of the device.
Regarding claim 17, Kamezaki, Gehring, and Sakakibara as applied to claim 1 teach the second direction is not parallel to the first direction (see Kamezaki figure 3).
Regarding claim 18, Kamezaki, Gehring, and Sakakibara as applied to claim 1 teach the housing is configured to be positioned on an external surface such that the second side (Kamezaki 41) is adjacent to the external surface (see Kamezaki figure 2 where a foot is shown underneath the second surface).
Regarding claim 19, Kamezaki discloses a device (Kamezaki 1) comprising:
A fan (Kamezaki 12)
One or more heat generating electrical components (Kamezaki [0046]; Examiner notes heat generating components must exist to heat the heated exhaust)
A housing (Kamezaki 11) comprising:
A first side (Kamezaki 45);
A second side (Kamezaki 41) opposite the first side (see Kamezaki figure 3);
At least one sidewall (Kamezaki 42) extending between the first side and the second side (see Kamezaki figure 3);
A vent (Kamezaki 421),
Wherein the vent defines an opening (see Kamezaki figure 4) extending through the at least one sidewall placing an interior chamber of the device in fluid communication with an exterior region (see Kamezaki figure 3);
An arc (Kamezaki 411);
Wherein the arc is integrally formed with the vent adjacent the interior chamber (see Kamezaki figure 3).
Kamezaki is silent regarding ribs, a ramp, and a chamfer.
However, Gehring teaches an air outlet for a vehicle (Gehring 10) comprising a plurality of horizontal ribs (Gehring 29) for guiding airflow out of the air outlet.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kamezaki’s device to incorporate Gehring’s teachings of horizontal ribs in an outlet vent to better guide airflow in the desired direction.
However, Sakakibara teaches an air outlet designed to produce a thin air outlet while allowing sufficient airflow volume and directivity (Sakakibara [0005]) that comprises a ramp (Sakakibara 26A) that defines a sloping transition to an arc (see Sakakibara figure 3) along a bottom surface of an interior chamber (see Sakakibara figure 3) to enable airflow to interact with the arc and a chamfer at the upper edge (see Sakakibara figure 3) to enable airflow to be directed upward out of the vent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kamezaki’s device to incorporate Sakakibara’s teachings of utilizing a ramp within an airflow passageway to produce a predictable result of widening the airflow path to before the outlet to provide an outlet capable of sufficient airflow volume out while keeping the outlet thin and a chamfered upper edge on a vent to produce a predictable result of allowing upward airflow out of the vent.
Regarding claim 20, Kamezaki, Gehrig, and Sakakibara as applied to claim 19 teach the air flow directed through the vents is moved upward relative to the first direction by the arc (see Kamezaki figure 3) and wherein the air flow bounces off the plurality of ribs and exits the vent in the second direction towards a plane of the first side (see Gehrig figure 1) and the first direction and second direction are not parallel (see Kamezaki figure 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R BRAWNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm EST.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/CHARLES R BRAWNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762