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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boone (US 20070206353 A1) in view of Egbert (US 20060082973 A1).
As to claim 1, Boone discloses: A
a
a heat sink 64 configured to draw heat away from the
at least one airflow port (openings or passageways for airflow; at 78 on top of 70 in Fig. 2; exit of blower 28 before 50 in Fig. 3; apertures 72, 74) positioned to allow air to flow across the heat sink (e.g., in, out, and through device including across the heat sink 64); and
a conductive shield 22 (“the chassis 22 can act as the EMI cage”; par. 0032; inherently must be a conductive shield in order to function as an electromagnetic interference cage) at least partially covering the at least one airflow port (surrounds and covers at vents 46, 50), the conductive shield comprising a plurality of apertures 46, 50 positioned over the at least one airflow port and configured to allow the air to flow through the at least one airflow port, wherein the conductive shield is formed of a unitary, integral piece of material (see Fig. 1-6), and wherein the plurality of apertures 46, 50 is arranged in one or more arrays, the arrays comprising one or more rows of apertures (e.g., one row around the perimeter of the chassis 22) and one or more columns of apertures (multiple columns of 46 and 50), wherein the conductive shield is configured to inhibit passage of electromagnetic noise through the at least one airflow port (“the chassis 22 can act as the EMI cage”; par. 0032).
Boone does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the communication is a wireless communication device;
wherein the communication element is a wireless communication element configured to at least one of transmit or receive a wireless signal; and
wherein the conductive shield is formed of a unitary, integral piece of sheet metal.
However, Boone further suggests:
wherein a conductive shield is formed of sheet metal (see par. 0032, 0037);
in order to form an EMI cage/minimize the likelihood of unwanted signal interference (see par. 0032, 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Boone as suggested by Boone, e.g., providing:
wherein the conductive shield is formed of a unitary, integral piece of sheet metal;
in order to form an EMI cage/minimize the likelihood of unwanted signal interference.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Further, Egbert discloses:
A wireless communication device (wireless router; Fig. 1-6), comprising:
a wireless communication element (par. 0012-0018) configured to at least one of transmit or receive a wireless signal;
a heat sink 124, 228, 230, 232 (par. 0028-0030) configured to draw heat away from the wireless communication element;
in order to provide a wireless router with heat dissipation (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Boone as suggested by Egbert, e.g., providing:
wherein the communication is a wireless communication device;
wherein the communication element is a wireless communication element configured to at least one of transmit or receive a wireless signal; and
a heat sink configured to draw heat away from the wireless communication element;
in order to provide a wireless router with heat dissipation.
Additionally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to claim 2, Boone in view of Egbert discloses:
wherein the wireless communication element comprises a wireless signal extender element (e.g., amplifiers; par. 0015-0018; Egbert).
As to claim 3, Boone in view of Egbert discloses:
wherein the heat sink comprises a first heat spreader 232 (Egbert) and a second heat spreader 230 assembled with the first heat spreader.
As to claim 5, Boone in view of Egbert discloses:
wherein the plurality of apertures 46, 50 (Boone) comprises an array of apertures over each airflow port (at 78, 72, exit of blower 28; see Fig. 2-3) of the at least one airflow port.
As to claim 6, Boone in view of Egbert discloses:
wherein the at least one airflow port comprises an air inlet port (at 78, 72; see Fig. 2; Boone).
As to claim 7, Boone in view of Egbert discloses:
wherein the at least one airflow port comprises an air outlet port (exit of blower 28 before 50 in Fig. 3; Boone).
As to claim 8, Boone in view of Egbert discloses:
wherein the at least one airflow port comprises an air inlet port (at 78, 72; see Fig. 2; Boone) and an air outlet port (exit of blower 28 before 50 in Fig. 3; Boone), wherein the plurality of apertures comprises a first array of apertures 46 over the air inlet port and a second array of apertures 50 (one or more vents 50; par. 0024) over the air outlet port.
As to claim 9, Boone in view of Egbert discloses:
wherein the conductive shield comprises a metal plate material (sheet of metal; par. 0032, 0037; Boone).
As to claim 11, Boone in view of Egbert does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising conductive bolts securing the conductive shield to the heat sink.
However, Egbert discloses:
further comprising conductive bolts 235 (bolts, par. 0029; at least somewhat thermally conductive; Egbert) securing the conductive shield to the heat sink (indirectly - heat sink 232 is secured to the board 222 and rest of the assembled device, including the housing and the emi covers through bolts 235; Egbert; bolts will inherently be thermally conductive to a certain extent);
in order to provide a wireless router with heat dissipation (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Boone and Egbert as suggested by Egbert, e.g., providing:
further comprising conductive bolts securing the conductive shield to the heat sink;
in order to provide a wireless router with heat dissipation.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boone (US 20070206353 A1) in view of Egbert (US 20060082973 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Mease (US 6992894 B1).
As to claim 4, Boone in view of Egbert does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the conductive shield is physically and electrically connected to the first heat spreader and to the second heat spreader.
However, Mease discloses:
wherein the conductive shield (conductive enclosure; Abstract) is physically and electrically connected (via a conductor; Abstract) to the heat sink (Abstract);
in order to provide electromagnetic shielding of an electronic component (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Boone and Egbert as suggested by Mease, e.g., providing:
wherein the conductive shield is physically and electrically connected to the first heat spreader and to the second heat spreader;
in order to provide electromagnetic shielding of the wireless communication element.
Additionally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boone (US 20070206353 A1) in view of Egbert (US 20060082973 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Buskmiller (US 6252180 B1).
As to claim 10, Boone in view of Egbert does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the metal plate material comprises a stainless-steel plate material.
However, Buskmiller discloses:
wherein the metal plate material comprises a stainless-steel plate material (par. 0038-0052);
in order to provide a conductive material, increased stiffness, and/or a common voltage potential (par. 0038-0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Boone and Egbert as suggested by Buskmiller, e.g., providing:
wherein the metal plate material comprises a stainless-steel plate material;
in order to provide a conductive material, increased stiffness, and/or a common voltage potential.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Additionally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claimed Elements Not Taught
Applicant has suggested that the rejection “impermissibly conflates distinct structures rather than identifying the claimed spatial and functional arrangement” (Remarks, p. 4-5). Specifically, Applicant has suggested that air-control device 70 is not designed as an EMI cage.
In response, Examiner notes that chassis 22 of Boone is relied upon as the conductive shield, and par. 0032 explicitly states: “the chassis 22 can act as the EMI cage”.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
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 JACOB R CRUM whose telephone number is (571)270-7665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at (571) 270-1985. 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.
/JACOB R CRUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
