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 Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “the at last one airflow port” instead of “the at least one airflow port”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 Egbert (US 20060082973 A1) in view of Gilliland (US 20130094170 A1).
As to claim 1, Egbert discloses:
A wireless communication device (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;
at least one airflow port 210, 250 positioned to allow air to flow across the heat sink.
Egbert does not explicitly disclose:
a conductive shield at least partially covering the at last one airflow port, the conductive shield comprising a plurality of apertures 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 configured to inhibit passage of electromagnetic noise through the at least one airflow port.
However, Gilliland discloses:
a conductive shield (sheet 202; Fig. 2; par. 0020) at least partially covering the at least one airflow port (sheet 206, comprising multiple apertures 208), the conductive shield 202 comprising a plurality of apertures 204 positioned over the at least one airflow port and configured to allow the air to flow through the at least one airflow port (through the plurality of apertures 208 of the airflow port 206), wherein the conductive shield is configured to inhibit passage of electromagnetic noise through the at least one airflow port (par. 0020);
in order to provide emi shielding and airflow for continued effective operation of the electronic devices (par. 0003).
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 Egbert as suggested by Gilliland, e.g., forming the airflow ports as a two-layer shielded structure, providing:
a conductive shield at least partially covering the at last one airflow port, the conductive shield comprising a plurality of apertures 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 configured to inhibit passage of electromagnetic noise through the at least one airflow port;
in order to provide emi shielding and airflow for continued effective operation of the wireless communication device.
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, Egbert in view of Gilliland discloses:
wherein the wireless communication element comprises a wireless signal extender element (e.g., amplifiers; par. 0015-0018; Egbert).
As to claim 3, Egbert in view of Gilliland 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, Egbert in view of Gilliland discloses:
wherein the plurality of apertures comprises an array of apertures over each airflow port of the at least one airflow port (as in Fig. 2; Gilliland).
As to claim 6, Egbert in view of Gilliland discloses:
wherein the at least one airflow port comprises an air inlet port 210 (Egbert).
As to claim 7, Egbert in view of Gilliland discloses:
wherein the at least one airflow port comprises an air outlet port 250 (Egbert).
As to claim 8, Egbert in view of Gilliland discloses:
wherein the at least one airflow port comprises an air inlet port and an air outlet port, wherein the plurality of apertures comprises a first array of apertures over the air inlet port and a second array of apertures over the air outlet port (each inlet/outlet port formed as in Fig. 2 of Gilliland, or covered with a covering shield as in Fig. 2 of Gilliland; in order to shield the air inlet ports and the air outlet ports).
As to claim 9, Egbert in view of Gilliland discloses:
wherein the conductive shield comprises a metal plate material (par. 0020; Egbert).
As to claim 11, Egbert in view of Gilliland 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).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egbert (US 20060082973 A1) in view of Gilliland (US 20130094170 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Mease (US 6992894 B1).
As to claim 4, Egbert in view of Gilliland 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 Egbert and Gilliland 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 Egbert (US 20060082973 A1) in view of Gilliland (US 20130094170 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Buskmiller (US 6252180 B1).
As to claim 10, Egbert in view of Gilliland 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 Egbert and Gilliland 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 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claimed Elements Not Taught
Applicant has suggested that Gilliland does not disclose:
“a conductive shield at least partially covering the at last one airflow port, the conductive shield comprising a plurality of apertures positioned over the at least one airflow port and configured to allow the air to flow through the at least one airflow port” because Gilliland includes multiple scoop structures with single openings rather than a single conductive shield element having a plurality of apertures therethrough (Remarks, p. 4-5).
In response, Examiner notes that Gilliland clearly discloses a conductive shield 202 (not an individual scoop 204) comprising a plurality of apertures (scoops 204) positioned over the at least one airflow port (sheet 206, with a plurality of apertures 208). The claims do not currently require that the airflow port is a singular opening instead of a collection of openings. Note that the airflow ports 210, 250 of Egbert are collections of openings similarly as in Gilliland. 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) 272-3740. 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 2835