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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended claims 10 and 19 to overcome the drawing objections however, the newly amended “electrical components” of claim 19 is still not shown in the drawings.
Applicant has argued that the combination of ribs and arc acting in combination forms a synergistic interaction that is critical to the claimed subject matter and has not been properly addressed by examiner’s combination of Kamezaki and Gehring which separately teach an arc to direct airflow and ribs to direct airflow. Examiner disagrees, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would understand that both of Kamezaki’s arc and Gehring’s ribs both function to direct airflow and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the two structures to function together to create a greater effect when combined. Applicant’s specification and claims do not suggest any unexpected result from the combination of an arc and ribs; therefore, the rejection is being maintained.
Regarding claim 19, Applicant has further argued that claim 19’s combination of ribs, arc, ramp, and chamfer act in combination to direct airflow form a specific functional relationship that is not addressed by the 103 rejection that relies upon separate references to teach the features. Examiner disagrees, each of the claimed features is taught in the prior art to be used for the recited function of directing airflow as it passes through a vent and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that combining the separate features would further enhance the effect. Applicant’s specification and claims do not suggest any unexpected result from the combination of ribs, an arc, a ramp, and a chamfer and therefore the rejection is being maintained.
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 "one or more 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
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, making separate parts into a single integral piece is considered to be an obvious matter of design choice. (See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B)
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 comprising:
A housing (Kamezaki 11);
a fan (Kamezaki 12);
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 change in shape is considered to be an obvious matter of design choice unless there is persuasive evidence the configuration is significant. (see MPEP § 2144.04 IV B)
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, making separate parts into a single integral piece is considered to be an obvious matter of design choice. (See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the exhaust direction control system 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 electrical components (Kamezaki [0025]; Examiner notes a CPU, RAMP, SSD, battery and the like are all electrical components)
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights