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 “a third heat pipe extending within the third frame and thermally coupled to the set of connectors” from claim 18 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 Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1-20, the bullet point characters should be deleted.
In claim 5, line 11, “third configured” should read --third configuration--.
In claim 10, line 13, “the first energy storage capacity” should read --the first memory storage capacity--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 claims, “a second frame defining a second external geometry, greater than the second external geometry.” However, it is unclear how the second external geometry can be greater than itself. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “a second frame defining a second external geometry, greater than the first external geometry.”
Claims 2-15 are rejected due to their dependency.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hood (US Patent No. 6058009) in view of Liao (US Publication No. 2016/0334842), Ou (US Publication No. 2014/0211420), and Tracy (US Publication No. 2008/0259556).
Regarding claim 1, Hood discloses a modular computer system (computer 10) comprising: a chassis (chassis 12): defining a slot (open slot 12a) arranged along a first lateral side of the chassis (see Figure 1); and comprising an electronic communication port (connector 52) arranged within the chassis (12) and extending into the slot (12a); a controller (motherboard 14, including processor 16) arranged within the chassis (12) and electronically coupled to the electronic communication port (52); a first heat pipe (heat pipe 32) thermally coupled to the controller (14, 16) and extending proximal the slot (12a) of the chassis (12); a display (display of 10) coupled to the chassis (12); and a module kit (see col. 3, ln. 19-29).
Hood does not disclose a module kit comprising: a cooling module defining a first mass and comprising: a first frame defining a first external geometry and configured to transiently couple the first lateral side of the chassis to locate the cooling module within the slot; and a first set of fans configured to thermally couple the first set of heat pipes to dissipate heat transferred from the controller.
However, Liao teaches a module kit comprising: a cooling module (auxiliary heat-dissipating module Z2) defining a first mass, and comprising: a first frame (10) defining a first external geometry and configured to transiently couple the first lateral side of a chassis (housing of Z) to locate the cooling module (Z2) within the slot (Z1000, corresponding to 12a in Hood); and a first fan (21) configured to thermally couple the first heat pipe (Z10, corresponding to 32 in Hood) to dissipate heat transferred from the controller (S), operable in a first configuration comprising the cooling module (Z2) located within the slot (Z1000) and thermally coupling the controller (S) to dissipate heat generated from the controller (S).
Because Hood also suggests different modules can be placed within slot 12a (see Col. 3, Ln. 19-29 in Hood), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the cooling module of Liao to the kit of modules in Hood. Doing so would have increased the functionality and modularity of the system, by allowing a user to employ a cooling module to increase heat dissipation of the system (see Paragraph [0006]-[0009] in Liao).
Hood in view of Liao does not teach a graphics processing module defining a second mass, greater than the first mass, and comprising: a second frame defining a second external geometry, greater than the first external geometry, and configured to transiently couple the first lateral side of the chassis to locate the graphics processing module within the slot; a graphics processing unit configured to electronically couple the electronic communication port to transmit electrical signals from the graphics processing unit to the controller; a second set of heat pipes extending within the second frame and thermally coupled to the graphics processing unit; and a second set of fans configured to thermally couple the first set of heat pipes and the second set of heat pipes to dissipate heat transferred from the controller and the graphics processing unit; operable in a second configuration comprising the graphics processing module located within the slot, electrically coupling the controller to transmit electrical signals from the graphics processing unit, and thermally coupling the controller to dissipate heat generated from the controller and the graphics processing unit.
However, Ou teaches a graphics processing module (140) defining a second mass, and configured to transiently couple the first lateral side of the chassis (side of 110) to locate the graphics processing module (140) within the slot (111, corresponding to 12a in Hood); a graphics processing unit (140) configured to electronically couple the electronic communication port (130) to transmit electrical signals from the graphics processing unit (140) to the controller (120); and a second fan (170) to dissipate heat transferred from the controller (120) and the graphics processing unit (143); operable in a second configuration comprising the graphics processing module (140) located within the slot (111), electrically coupling the controller (120) to transmit electrical signals from the graphics processing unit (143), and thermally coupling the controller (120) to dissipate heat generated from the controller (120) and the graphics processing unit (140; NOTE: because fan 17 is located directly adjacent to motherboard 120, fan 170 is held to be thermally coupled to 120 and thus capable of dissipating at least some heat generated by 120).
Because Hood also suggests different modules can be placed within slot 12a (see Col. 3, Ln. 19-29 in Hood), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the GPU module of Ou to the kit of modules in Hood as modified by Liao. Doing so would have increased the functionality and modularity of the system, by allowing a user to connect a GPU to the motherboard for the enhanced ability to perform massive numbers of calculations required for graphics processing (see Paragraphs [0005]-[0009] in Ou).
Hood in view of Liao and Ou does not teach a graphics processing module defining a second set of heat pipes extending within the second frame and thermally coupled to the graphics processing unit; and a second set of fans configured to thermally couple the first set of heat pipes and the second set of heat pipes.
However, Tracy teaches a graphics processing module (12) defining a second heat pipe (70) extending within the second frame (40) and thermally coupled to the graphics processing unit (60, including 62); and a second fan (64) configured to thermally couple to the second heat pipe (70).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the graphics heat pipe of Tracy to the graphics processing module of Hood as modified by Liao and Ou. Doing so would have increased heat dissipation of the graphics processing unit (see Paragraph [0008] in Tracy).
Hood in view of Liao, Ou, and Tracy does not explicitly teach the first pipe being a first set of heat pipes, the second heat pipe being a second set of heat pipes, the first fan being a first set of fans, and the second fan being a second set of fans. However, it is well established that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Here, duplicating the amount of heat pipes and fans would simply result in the expected result of increasing heat dissipation by increasing the amount of airflow and heat dissipation surface area.
Regarding the functional limitation “the second set of fans configured to thermally couple the first set of heat pipes and the second set of heat pipes to dissipate heat transferred from the controller and the graphics processing unit,” because the structure of the system of Hood as modified by Liao, Ou, and Tracy is identical to the claimed structure, the system of Hood as modified by Liao, Ou, and Tracy is considered to be as capable of performing the function as the claimed invention, absent any claimed structural difference. See MPEP § 2114 I & II, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function... A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus' if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” In the instant case, when the heat pipe of Tracy is combined to the graphics processing module of Hood as modified by Liao and Ou, the structure results in the second fan thermally connecting the graphics processing heat pipe to the controller heat pipe, satisfying the condition “the second set of fans configured to thermally couple the first set of heat pipes and the second set of heat pipes to dissipate heat transferred from the controller and the graphics processing unit.”
Hood in view of Liao, Ou, and Tracy does not explicitly teach “a second frame defining a second mass, greater than the first mass, and a second external geometry, greater than the second external geometry.” However, Hood and Liao and Ou teach similar module housings, where the primary difference between the cooling module and the graphics processing module is the addition of the graphics processing unit within the graphics processing module. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the power module to have a second mass and geometry greater than the first mass and geometry, considering the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed relationship because the primary difference between the cooling module and the graphics processing module is the addition of the graphics unit within the power module, the graphics processing module requiring more space to accommodate the GPU and resulting in more mass than a cooling module without a GPU.
Regarding claim 2, Hood in view of Liao, Ou, and Tracy teaches the system of Claim 1: further comprising (in Hood) a first battery (Col. 2, Ln. 7-17, 64-67, standard battery): arranged within the chassis (12); defining a first energy storage capacity (power of standard battery within 12); and configured to electrically couple the controller (14, 16) to transmit electrical energy stored within the first battery (standard battery) to the controller (14, 16); wherein the module kit further comprises a power module (42) comprising: a third frame (housing of 42) configured to transiently couple the first lateral side of the chassis (side of 12) to locate the power module (42) within the slot (12a); a third fan (46) configured to thermally couple the first set of heat pipes (32, as modified above) to dissipate heat transferred from the controller (14, 16); and a second battery (44) defining a second energy storage capacity (power of 44), and configured to electrically couple the electronic communication port (52) to transmit electrical energy stored within the second battery (44) to the controller (14, 16); and wherein the module kit is operable in a third configuration comprising the power module (42) extending within the slot (12a), electrically coupling the controller (14, 16) to transmit electrical power stored within the second battery (44) to the controller (14, 16), and thermally coupling the controller (14, 16) to dissipate heat generated from the controller (14, 16; see Col. 2, Ln. 45-67; Col. 3, Ln. 1-34).
Hood in view of Liao, Ou, and Tracy does not explicitly teach the third fan being a third set of fans. However, it is well established that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Here, duplicating the amount of heat pipes and fans would simply result in the expected result of increasing heat dissipation by increase the amount of airflow.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the second energy storage capacity is greater than the first energy storage capacity”, since the modular computer of the claimed invention has similar structure and proportion to the modular computer of Hood as modified by Liao, Ou, and Tracy, the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed relationship between the first and second batteries because doing so would have provided the user with more power capacity to power the computer during high processing times (see Col. 2, Ln. 45-67 in Hood).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hood (US Patent No. 6058009), Liao (US Publication No. 2016/0334842), Ou (US Publication No. 2014/0211420), Tracy (US Publication No. 2008/0259556), and in further view of Cho (KR Publication No. 2010/0131694).
Regarding claim 3, Hood in view of Liao, Ou, and Tracy teaches the system of Claim 2, and further teaches (in Hood) wherein the third set of fans (46, as modified above) is configured to thermally couple the first set of heat pipes (32, as modified above) to dissipate heat transferred from the controller (14, 16), but does not teach wherein the power module further comprises a third set of heat pipes extending within the third frame and thermally coupled to the second battery; and wherein the third set of fans is configured to thermally couple the third set of heat pipes to dissipate heat transferred from the second battery.
However, Cho teaches a module comprising a third heat pipe (200) extending within the third frame (110) and thermally coupled to the second battery (300).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the third heat pipe of Cho to the battery module of Hood as modified by Liao, Ou, and Tracy. Doing so would have increased heat dissipation of the battery (see page 1 of Cho).
Hood in view of Liao, Ou, Tracy, and Cho does not explicitly teach the third heat pipe being a third set of heat pipes. However, it is well established that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Here, duplicating the amount of heat pipes would simply result in the expected result of increasing heat dissipation by increasing the amount of heat dissipation surface area.
Regarding the functional limitation, “wherein the third set of fans is configured to thermally couple the third set of heat pipes to dissipate heat transferred from the second battery,” because the structure of the system of Hood as modified by Liao, Ou, Tracy, and Cho is identical to the claimed structure, the system of Hood as modified by Liao, Ou, Tracy, and Cho is considered to be as capable of performing the function as the claimed invention, absent any claimed structural difference. See MPEP § 2114 I & II, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function... A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus' if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” In the instant case, Hood teaches fan 46 being thermally connected to battery 44 and to processor 30. Thus, when the heat pipe of Cho is combined to the battery of Hood as modified by Liao, Ou, and Tracy, the structure results in the fan thermally connecting the battery heat pipe to the processor heat pipe, satisfying the condition “the third set of fans is configured to thermally couple the third set of heat pipes to dissipate heat transferred from the second battery.”
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hood (US Patent No. 6058009), Liao (US Publication No. 2016/0334842), Ou (US Publication No. 2014/0211420), Tracy (US Publication No. 2008/0259556), and in further view of Urita (US Patent No. 6188573).
Regarding claim 5, Hood in view of Liao, Ou, and Tracy teaches the system of Claim 1, but does not teach wherein the module kit further comprises an interface module comprising: a third frame configured to transiently couple the first lateral side of the chassis to locate the interface module within the slot; a third set of fans configured to thermally couple the first set of heat pipes to dissipate heat transferred from the controller; and a set of connectors arranged along the third frame and configured to electronically couple the electronic communication port to transmit electrical signals from peripheral devices coupled to the set of connectors to the controller; and wherein the module kit is operable in a third configured comprising the interface module extending within the slot, electrically coupling the controller to transmit electrical signals from the set of connectors to the controller, and thermally coupling the controller to dissipate heat generated from the controller.
However, Urita teaches wherein a module kit comprises an interface module (91) comprising: a third frame (100) configured to transiently couple the first lateral side of the chassis (side of 47) to locate the interface module (91) within the slot (93); a third fan (102) configured to thermally couple to the controller (50A, including 51) to dissipate heat transferred from the controller (50A, 51); and a set of connectors (connectors of 91; see Figures 2 and 6-7) arranged along the third frame (100) and configured to electronically couple the electronic communication port (95) to transmit electrical signals from peripheral devices coupled to the set of connectors (connectors of 91) to the controller (50A, 51); and wherein the module kit is operable in a third configuration comprising the interface module (91) extending within the slot (93), electrically coupling the controller (50A, 51) to transmit electrical signals from the set of connectors (connectors of 91) to the controller (50A, 51), and thermally coupling the controller (50A, 51) to dissipate heat generated from the controller (50A, 51; see Col. 8, Ln. 5-22).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the interface module of Urita to the module kit of Hood as modified by Liao, Ou, and Tracy, such that the third fan of Urita was configured to thermally coupled to the heat pipes of Hood as modified by Liao, Ou, and Tracy. Doing so would have increased the modularity of the system by allowing the system to connect with network devices (see Col. 8 and Figures 6-7).
Hood in view of Liao, Ou, Tracy, and Urita does not explicitly teach the third fan being a third set of fans. However, it is well established that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Here, duplicating the number of fans would simply result in the expected result of increasing heat dissipation by increasing the amount of airflow.
Regarding the functional limitation “the third set of fans configured to thermally couple the first set of heat pipes,” because the structure of the system of Hood as modified by Liao, Ou, Tracy, and Urita is identical to the claimed structure, the system of Hood as modified by Liao, Ou, Tracy, and Urita is considered to be as capable of performing the function as the claimed invention, absent any claimed structural difference. See MPEP § 2114 I & II, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function... A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus' if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” In the instant case, the controller heat pipes of Hood as modified by Liao, Ou, and Tracy are connected to the controller, and Urita explicitly teaches fan 120 being configured to cool the controller, satisfying the condition “the third set of fans configured to thermally couple the first set of heat pipes.”
Regarding claim 10, Hood in view of Liao, Ou, and Tracy teaches the system of Claim 1: and further teaches (in Hood) wherein the chassis further comprises (in Hood) a first memory unit (18): arranged within the chassis (12); defining a first memory storage capacity (see Col. 2, Ln. 1-5); and configured to electrically couple the controller (14, 16) to transmit data stored within the first memory unit (18) to the controller (14, 16; see Col. 2, Ln. 1-5).
Hood in view of Liao, Ou, and Tracy does not teach the module kit further comprising a memory module comprising: a third frame configured to transiently couple the first lateral side of the chassis to locate the memory module within the slot; a third set of fans configured to thermally couple the first set of heat pipes to dissipate heat transferred from the controller; and a second memory unit defining a second memory storage capacity, greater than the first energy storage capacity, and configured to electrically couple the electronic communication port to transmit data stored within the second memory unit to the controller; and wherein the module kit is operable in a third configuration comprising the memory module extending within the slot, electrically coupling the controller to transmit data stored within the second memory unit to the controller, and thermally coupling the controller to dissipate heat generated from the controller.
However, Urita teaches a module kit comprising a memory module (hard disk drive 84) comprising: a third frame (housing of 84) configured to transiently couple the first lateral side of the chassis (side of 41) to locate the memory module (84) within the slot (46a); a third fan (62) configured to thermally couple the controller (50, including 51); and a second memory unit (HDD of 84) defining a second memory storage capacity (see Col. 6), and configured to electrically couple the electronic communication port (46c) to transmit data stored within the second memory unit (HDD of 84) to the controller (50, 51); and wherein the module kit is operable in a third configuration comprising the memory module (84) extending within the slot (46a), electrically coupling the controller (50, 51) to transmit data stored within the second memory unit (HDD of 84) to the controller (50, 51), and thermally coupling the controller (50, 51) to dissipate heat generated from the controller (50, 51; see col. 5, ln. 56-64 and Figures 2-6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the memory module of Urita to the module kit of Hood as modified by Liao, Ou, and Tracy. Doing so would have increased the modularity of the system by providing an additional memory module for increased storage space (see Col. 6 and Figures 2-6 in Urita).
Hood in view of Liao, Ou, Tracy, and Urita does not explicitly teach the third fan being a third set of fans. However, it is well established that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Here, duplicating the number of fans would simply result in the expected result of increasing heat dissipation by increasing the amount of airflow.
Regarding the functional limitation “the third set of fans configured to thermally couple the first set of heat pipes,” because the structure of the system of Hood as modified by Liao, Ou, Tracy, and Urita is identical to the claimed structure, the system of Hood as modified by Liao, Ou, Tracy, and Urita is considered to be as capable of performing the function as the claimed invention, absent any claimed structural difference. See MPEP § 2114 I & II, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function... A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus' if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” In the instant case, the controller heat pipes of Hood as modified by Liao, Ou, and Tracy are connected to the controller, and Urita explicitly teaches fan 62 being configured to cool the controller, satisfying the condition “the third set of fans configured to thermally couple the first set of heat pipes.”
Regarding the limitation “the second memory storage capacity greater than the first memory storage capacity”, since the modular computer of the claimed invention has similar structure and proportion to the modular computer of Hood as modified by Liao, Ou, Tracy, and Urita, the stated limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed relationship between the first and second memory modules because doing so would have allowed the system to expand the storage capacity on an as needed basis (see Col. 6, Ln. 23-37 in Urita).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hood (US Patent No. 6058009), Liao (US Publication No. 2016/0334842), Ou (US Publication No. 20140211420), Tracy (US Publication No. 2008/0259556), and in further view of Urita (US Patent No. 6188573) and Kikins (US Patent No. 5331509).
Regarding claim 6, Hood in view of Liao, Ou, and Tracy teaches the system of Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the module kit is operable in a third configuration comprising: the graphics processing module (141 in Ou) extending within the slot (12a in Hood), electrically coupling the controller (14, 16 in Hood) to transmit electrical signals from the graphics processing unit (141 in Ou, as modified by Tracy), and thermally coupling the controller (14, 16 in Hood) to dissipate heat generated from the controller (14, 16 in Hood) and the graphics processing unit (141 in Ou as modified by Tracy).
Hood in view of Liao, Ou, and Tracy does not teach wherein the chassis: defines a second slot: arranged on a second lateral side, opposite the first lateral side, of the chassis; and defining a rectangular geometry inset a bottom side of the chassis; and comprises a second electronic communication port extending into the second slot and electronically coupled to the controller; wherein the module kit further comprises an interface module comprising: an enclosure configured to transiently couple the second lateral side of the chassis to locate the interface module within the second slot; a first connector arranged on a first side of the enclosure and configured to interface with a peripheral device; and a second connector arranged on a second side, opposite the first side, of the enclosure and configured to electronically couple the second electronic communication port to transmit electrical signals from the first connector to the controller; and wherein the module kit is operable in a third configuration comprising: the interface module extending within the second slot and electrically coupling the controller to transmit electrical signals from the first connector to the controller.
However, Urita teaches wherein a chassis (41B): defines a first slot (46a) and a second slot (93): arranged on a second lateral side of the chassis (side of 41B); and defining a rectangular geometry inset a bottom side of the chassis (bottom of 41B); and comprises a second electronic communication port (95) extending into the second slot (93) and electronically coupled to the controller (50A, including 51); wherein the module kit further comprises an interface module (91) comprising: an enclosure (100) configured to transiently couple the second lateral side of the chassis (side of 41B) to locate the interface module within the second slot (93); a first connector (connectors of 93) arranged on a first side of the enclosure (front side of 100) and configured to interface with a peripheral device (network devices connected to connectors of 91); and a second connector (101) arranged on a second side (rear side of 100), opposite the first side (front side of 100), of the enclosure (100) and configured to electronically couple the second electronic communication port (95) to transmit electrical signals from the first connector (connectors of 91) to the controller (50A, 51); and wherein the module kit is operable in a third configuration comprising: the interface module (91) extending within the second slot (93) and electrically coupling the controller (50A, 51) to transmit electrical signals from the first connector (connectors of 91) to the controller (50A, 51).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the second slot and interface module of Urita to the chassis and module kit of Hood as modified by Liao, Ou, and Tracy. Doing so would have increased the modularity of the system by allowing the system to connect with network devices (see Col. 8 and Figures 6-7).
Hood in view of Liao, Ou, Tracy, and Urita does not teach wherein the second slot is arranged on a second lateral side, opposite the first lateral side.
However, Kikinis teaches a first slot (25) arranged on a first lateral side of a chassis (first side of 59) and a second slot (41) arranged on a second lateral side of the chassis (second side of 59), the second lateral side opposite the first lateral side (see Figures 1-2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have arranged the second slot of Hood in view of Liao, Ou, Tracy, and Urita opposite the first slot of Hood in view of Liao, Ou, Tracy, and Urita, as taught in Kikinis, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hood (US Patent No. 6058009), Liao (US Publication No. 2016/0334842), Ou (US Publication No. 2014/0211420), Tracy (US Publication No. 2008/0259556), and in further view of Chang (US Publication No. 2004/0062001) and Markow (US Patent No. 6359994).
Regarding claim 13, Hood in view of Liao, Ou, and Tracy teaches the system of Claim 1, and further teaches (in Hood) wherein the module kit further comprises an module comprising: a third frame (42) configured to transiently couple the first lateral side of the chassis (side of 12) to locate the module within the slot (12a); a third fan (46) configured to thermally couple the first set of heat pipes (32, as modified above) to dissipate heat transferred from the controller (14, 16); and wherein the module kit is operable in a third configuration comprising the module extending within the slot (12a), electrically coupling the controller (14, 16), and thermally coupling the controller (14, 16) to dissipate heat generated from the controller (14, 16).
Hood in view of Liao, Ou, and Tracy does not teach wherein the chassis further comprises a first speaker unit: arranged within the chassis; defining a first frequency threshold; and configured to electrically couple the controller to broadcast audio signals from the first speaker unit, and wherein the module is an audio module, the audio module comprising a second speaker unit, defining a second frequency threshold, less than the first frequency threshold, and configured to electrically couple the electronic communication port to broadcast audio signals from the second speaker unit, module kit is operable in a third configuration comprising the audio module extending within the slot, electrically coupling the controller to broadcast audio signals from the second speaker unit.
However, Chang teaches wherein a module is an audio module (woofer module 40), the audio module (40) comprising a second speaker unit (44), configured to electrically couple the electronic communication port (connector with slot 24) to broadcast audio signals from the second speaker unit (44), wherein the module kit is operable in a third configuration comprising the audio module (44) extending within the slot (24), electrically coupling the controller (see Paragraphs [0018]-[0019]) to broadcast audio signals from the second speaker unit (44).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the speaker unit from the audio module of Chang to the module of Hood as modified by Liao, Ou, and Tracy. Doing so would have increased the functionality of the functional module, by providing the system with an audio module configured to output low frequency signals (see Paragraphs [0018]-[0020] in Chang).
Hood in view of Liao, Ou, Tracy, and Chang does not teach wherein the chassis further comprises a first speaker unit: arranged within the chassis; defining a first frequency threshold; and configured to electrically couple the controller to broadcast audio signals from the first speaker unit, and an audio module, the audio module comprising a second speaker unit, defining a second frequency threshold, less than the first frequency threshold.
However, Markow teaches a chassis (102) comprising a first speaker unit (speaker 104): arranged within the chassis (102); defining a first frequency threshold (high-frequency); and configured to electrically couple the controller (Figure 5, microprocessor 525, corresponding to 16 in Hood) to broadcast audio signals from the first speaker unit (102, corresponding to 597 in Figure 5), and an audio module (100), the audio module (100) comprising a second speaker unit (107), defining a second frequency threshold (low frequency), less than the first frequency threshold (high-frequency).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the high frequency speakers of Markow to the chassis of Hood as modified by Liao, Ou, Tracy, and Chang. Doing so would have increased the functionality of the system by allowing the system to output high frequency sound, in concert with the low frequency audio module from Chang (see Col. 5, Ln. 44-51 in Markow).
Hood in view of Liao, Ou, Tracy, Chang, and Markow does not explicitly teach the third fan being a third set of fans. However, it is well established that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Here, duplicating the number of fans would simply result in the expected result of increasing heat dissipation by increasing the amount of airflow.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hood (US Patent No. 6058009), Liao (US Publication No. 2016/0334842), Ou (US Publication No. 2014/0211420), Tracy (US Publication No. 2008/0259556), and in further view of Ohnishi (US Patent No. 6525932).
Regarding claim 14, Hood in view of Liao, Ou, and Tracy teaches the system of Claim 1, and further teaches wherein a first configuration comprises the cooling module (Z2 in Liao, corresponding to 42 in Hood) extending within the slot (12a in Hood) to locate the first frame (housing of 2, corresponding to housing of Z2 in Liao) flush with the first lateral side of the chassis (side of 12; see Figure 2 in Hood).
Because Hood and Liao teach similarly shaped cooling modules (see Figure 1 in Hood; see Figure 1 in Liao), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the cooling modules from Liao to fit flush with the side chassis, considering a change in shape has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed feature is significant. See MPEP § 2144.04 and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Doing so would have also provided for a streamline design (see Figure 2 in Hood).
Hood in view of Liao, Ou, and Tracy does not teach wherein the second configuration comprises the graphics processing module extending within the slot to locate the second frame extending outwardly from the first lateral side of the chassis.
However, Ohnishi teaches wherein the first configuration comprises a first module (housing of 250) extending within a slot (60) to locate the first frame (housing of 250) flush with the first lateral side of the chassis (side of 20); and wherein the second configuration comprises a second module (210) extending within the slot (60) to locate the second frame (housing of 210) extending outwardly from the first lateral side of the chassis (20; see Figure 1 and col. 12).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the GPU module in Hood as modified by Liao, Ou, and Tracy to include the extension portion taught in Ohnishi, considering a change in shape has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed feature is significant. See MPEP § 2144.04 and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Doing so would have also increased the functionality of the GPU module by providing the module with a position detecting information receiver (see Col. 12 in Ohnishi).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hood (US Patent No. 6058009) in view of Cho (KR Publication No. 2010/0131694) and Liao (US Publication No. 2016/0334842).
Regarding claim 16, Hood discloses a system comprising: a chassis (12): defining a slot (12a) arranged along a lateral side of the chassis (front side of 12); and comprising an electronic communication port (52) arranged within the chassis (12) and extending into the slot (12a); a controller (14, 16) arranged within the chassis (12) and electronically coupled to the electronic communication port (52); a first heat pipe (32) thermally coupled to the controller (14, 16) and extending proximal the slot (12a) of the chassis (12); a module kit comprising: a power module (see Figure 1) defining a second mass, and comprising: a second frame (42) configured to transiently couple the lateral side of the chassis (12) to locate the power module (see Figures 1-2) within the slot (12a); a battery (44) configured to electrically couple the electronic communication port (52, via 50) to transfer electrical energy stored within the battery (44) to the controller (14, 16); and a second fan (46) thermally coupled to the first heat pipe (32) to dissipate heat transferred from the controller (14, 16) and the second battery (44).
Hood does not teach a second heat pipe extending within the second frame and thermally coupled to the second battery; the second fan configured to thermally couple the first heat pipe and the second heat pipe.
However, Cho teaches a module comprising a second heat pipe (200) extending within a second frame (110) and thermally coupled to a second battery (300).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the second heat pipe of Cho to the battery of Hood. Doing so would have increased heat dissipation of the battery (see page 1 of Cho).
Regarding the functional limitation “the second fan configured to thermally couple the first heat pipe and the second heat pipe,” because the structure of the system of Hood as modified by Cho is identical to the claimed structure, the system of Hood as modified by Cho is considered to be as capable of performing the function as the claimed invention, absent any claimed structural difference. See MPEP § 2114 I & II, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function... A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus' if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” In the instant case, Hood teaches fan 46 being thermally connected to battery 44 and processor 16. Thus, when the heat pipe of Cho is combined to the battery of Hood, the structure results in the fan thermally connecting the battery heat pipe to the processor heat pipe, satisfying the condition “the second fan configured to thermally couple the first heat pipe and the second heat pipe.”
Hood in view of Cho does not teach a cooling module defining a first mass and comprising: a first frame configured to transiently couple the lateral side of the chassis to locate the cooling module within the slot; and a first fan configured to thermally couple the first heat pipe to dissipate heat transferred from the controller.
Liao further teaches a cooling module (Figures 1 and 8, Z2) defining a first mass and comprising: a first frame (10) configured to transiently couple the lateral side of the chassis (Z1) to locate the cooling module (Z2) within the slot (Z1000); and a first fan (21) configured to thermally couple the first heat pipe (Z10, via 26) to dissipate heat transferred from the controller (S);
Because Hood also suggests different modules can be placed within slot 12a (see Col. 3, Ln. 19-29 in Hood), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the cooling module of Liao to the kit of modules in Hood as modified by Cho. Doing so would have increased the functionality and modularity of the system, by allowing a user to employ a cooling module to increase heat dissipation of the system (see Paragraphs [0006]-[0009] in Liao).
Hood in view of Cho and Liao does not explicitly teach wherein the power module defines a second mass, greater than the first mass of the cooling module. However, Hood and Liao teach similar module housings, where the primary difference between the power module and the cooling module is the addition of the battery within the power module. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the power module to have a second mass greater than the first mass of the cooling module, considering the limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed relationship because the primary difference between the power module and the cooling module is the addition of the battery within the power module (see Figure 1 in Hood; see Figure 8 in Liao).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hood (US Patent No. 6058009), Cho (KR Publication No. 20100131694), Liao (US Publication No. 2016/0334842), and in further view of Ou (US Publication No. 2014/0211420) and Tracy (US Publication No. 2008/0259556).
Regarding claim 17, Hood in view of Cho and Liao teaches the system of Claim 16, but does not teach wherein the module kit further comprises a graphics processing module: defining a third mass greater than the first mass; and comprising: a third frame configured to transiently couple the lateral side of the chassis to locate the graphics processing module within the slot; a graphics processing unit configured to electronically couple the electronic communication port to transmit electrical signals from the graphics processing unit to the controller; a third heat pipe extending within the third frame and thermally coupled to the graphics processing unit; and a third fan configured to thermally couple the first heat pipe and the third heat pipe to dissipate heat transferred from the controller and the graphics processing unit.
However, Ou teaches a graphics processing module (140): defining a third mass, and comprising: a third frame (housing of 140) configured to transiently couple the lateral side of the chassis (side of 110) to locate the graphics processing module (140) within the slot (111, corresponding to 12a in Hood); a graphics processing unit (143) configured to electronically couple the electronic communication port (130) to transmit electrical signals from the graphics processing unit (143) to the controller (motherboard 120); and a third fan (170) configured to dissipate heat transferred from the controller (120) and the graphics processing unit (143; NOTE: because fan 17 is located directly adjacent to motherboard 120, fan 170 is held to be thermally coupled to 120 and thus capable of dissipating at least some heat generated by 120).
Because Hood also suggests different modules can be placed within slot 12a (see Col. 3, Ln. 19-29 in Hood), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the cooling module of Ou to the kit of modules in Hood as modified by Cho and Liao. Doing so would have increased the functionality and modularity of the system, by allowing a user to connect a GPU to the motherboard for the enhanced ability to perform massive numbers of calculations required for graphics processing (see Paragraphs [0005]-[0009] in Ou).
Hood in view of Cho, Liao, and Ou does not teach a graphics processing module defining a third heat pipe extending within the third frame and thermally coupled to the graphics processing unit; and a third fan configured to thermally couple the first heat pipe and the third heat pipe to dissipate heat transferred from the controller and the graphics processing unit.
However, Tracy teaches a graphics processing module (12) defining a third heat pipe (70) extending within the third frame (40) and thermally coupled to the graphics processing unit (60, including 62); and a third fan (64) configured to thermally couple to the second heat pipe (70).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the graphics heat pipe of Tracy to the graphics processing module of Hood as modified by Cho, Liao and Ou. Doing so would have increased heat dissipation of the graphics processing unit (see Paragraph [0008] in Tracy).
Regarding the functional limitation “a third fan configured to thermally couple the first heat pipe and the third heat pipe to dissipate heat transferred from the controller and the graphics processing unit,” because the structure of the system of Hood as modified by Cho, Liao, Ou, and Tracy is identical to the claimed structure, the system of Hood as modified by Cho, Liao, Ou, and Tracy is considered to be as capable of performing the function as the claimed invention, absent any claimed structural difference. See MPEP § 2114 I & II, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function... A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus' if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” In the instant case, when the heat pipe of Tracy is combined to the graphics processing module of Hood as modified by Cho, Liao, and Ou, the structure results in the third fan being thermally coupled to the graphics processing heat pipe to the controller heat pipe, satisfying the condition “a third fan configured to thermally couple the first heat pipe and the third heat pipe to dissipate heat transferred from the controller and the graphics processing unit.”
Hood in view of Cho, Liao, Ou, and Tracy does not explicitly teach “a third frame defining a third mass, greater than the first mass.” However, Hood and Liao and Ou teach similar module housings, where the primary difference between the cooling module and the graphics processing module is the addition of the graphics processing unit within the graphics processing module. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the graphics processing module to have a third mass greater than the first mass, considering the relationship is merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed relationship because the primary difference between the cooling module and the graphics processing module is the addition of the graphics unit within the module (see Figure 8 in Liao; see Figure 1 in Ou; see Figure 1 in Tracy).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hood (US Patent No. 6058009), Cho (KR Publication No. 20100131694), Liao (US Publication No. 2016/0334842), and in further view of Urita (US Patent No. 6188573) and Kamikakoi (US Publication No. 2008/0310098).
Regarding claim 18, Hood in view of Cho and Liao teaches the system of Claim 16, but does not teach wherein the module kit further comprises an interface module: defining a third mass greater than the first mass; and comprising: a third frame configured to transiently couple the lateral side of the chassis to locate the interface module within the slot; a set of connectors arranged along the third frame and configured to electronically couple the electronic communication port to transmit electrical signals from peripheral devices coupled at the set of connectors to the controller; a third heat pipe extending within the third frame and thermally coupled to the set of connectors; and a third fan configured to thermally couple the first heat pipe and the third heat pipe to dissipate heat transferred from the controller and the set of connectors.
However, Urita teaches wherein a module kit comprises an interface module (91): defining a third mass; and comprising: a third frame (housing of 91) configured to transiently couple the lateral side of the chassis (side of 90) to locate the interface module (91) within the slot (93); a set of connectors (connectors of 52 and 53; see Figures 2 and 7-8) arranged along the third frame (100) and configured to electronically couple (via 101) the electronic communication port (95) to transmit electrical signals from peripheral devices (network devices connected to connectors of 52, 53) coupled at the set of connectors (connectors of 52, 53) to the controller (50A, 51); and a third fan (102) configured to dissipate heat transferred from the controller (50A, 51) and the set of connectors (connectors of 52, 53).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the interface module of Urita to the module kit of Hood as modified by Cho and Liao. Doing so would have increased the modularity of the system by allowing the system to connect with peripheral network devices (see Col. 8 and Figures 6-7 in Urita).
Hood in view of Cho, Liao, and Urita does not teach a third heat pipe extending within a third frame and thermally coupled to the set of connectors.
However, Kamikakoi teaches a third heat pipe (38b) extending within a third frame (housing of 38) and thermally coupled to the set of connectors (see Figure 6B and Paragraph [0050]), and a third fan (38c, corresponding to 102 in Urita) configured to thermally couple the third heat pipe (38b) to dissipate heat transferred from the set of connectors (see Figure 6B and Paragraph [0050]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the third heat pipe of Kamikakoi to the connectors of Hood in view of Cho, Liao, and Urita, such that the third fan of Urita was configured to thermally couple the first heat pipe from Hood and the third heat pipe of Kamikakoi to dissipate heat generated by the controller of Hood and the set of connectors of Urita. Doing so would have increased heat dissipation of the interface module (see Paragraph [0050] in Kamikakoi).
Hood in view of Cho, Liao, Urita, and Kamikakoi does not explicitly teach wherein the interface module defines a third mass, greater than the first mass of the cooling module. However, Hood, Liao, and Urita teach similar module housings, where the primary difference between the interface module and the cooling module is the addition of the connectors/network interfaces within the interface module. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the interface module to have a third mass greater than the first mass of the cooling module, considering the limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed relationship because the primary difference between the interface module and the cooling module is the addition of the connectors/network modules within the interface module.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hood (US Patent No. 6058009), Cho (KR Publication No. 20100131694), Liao (US Publication No. 2016/0334842), and in further view of Urita (US Patent No. 6188573) and He (US Patent No. 10372168).
Regarding claim 19, Hood in view of Cho and Liao teaches the system of Claim 16, but does not teach wherein the module kit further comprises a memory module: defining a third mass greater than the first mass; and comprising: a third frame configured to transiently couple the first lateral side of the chassis to locate the memory module within the slot; a memory unit configured to electrically couple the electronic communication port to transmit data stored within the memory unit to the controller; and a third fan configured to thermally couple the first heat pipe and the third heat pipe to dissipate heat transferred from the controller and the memory unit.
However, Urita teaches wherein the module kit comprises a memory module (hard disk drive 84) defining a third mass; and comprising: a third frame (housing of 84) configured to transiently couple the first lateral side of the chassis (side of 41) to locate the memory module (84) within the slot (46a); a memory unit (HDD of 84) configured to electrically couple (via 63) the electronic communication port (46c) to transmit data stored within the memory unit (HDD of 84) to the controller (50, 51), and a third fan (62) configured to dissipate heat transferred from the controller (50, 51) and the memory unit (HDD of 84).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the memory module of Urita to the module kit of Hood as modified by Cho and Liao, such that the third fan of Urita was thermally coupled to the first heat pipe of Hood, considering the third fan of Urita is thermally coupled to the controller, and the heat pipe of Hood is directly connected to the controller. Doing so would have increased the modularity of the system by providing an additional memory module for increased storage space (see Col. 6 and Figures 6-7 in Urita).
Hood in view of Cho, Liao, and Urita does not teach a third heat pipe extending within the third frame and thermally coupled to the memory unit.
However, He teaches a memory module (200, 300) comprising a memory unit (210, 310), a third frame (230, 330), and a third fan (240, 340), and a third heat pipe (250, 350) extending within the third frame (230, 330) and thermally coupled to the memory unit (210, 310).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the heat pipe of He to the memory module of Hood as modified by Cho, Liao, and Urita, such that the third fan of Urita was configured to thermally couple the first heat pipe of Hood and the third heat pipe of He to dissipate heat transferred from the controller of Hood and the memory unit of Urita. Doing so would have increased heat dissipation of the system (see Col. 9, Ln. 49-63 in He).
Hood in view of Cho, Liao, Urita, and He does not explicitly teach wherein the memory module defines a third mass greater than the first mass of the cooling module. However, Hood, Liao, and Urita teach similar module housings, where the primary difference between the memory module and the cooling module is the addition of the memory unit within the memory module. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the memory module to have a second mass greater than the first mass of the cooling module, considering the limitation is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed relationship because the primary difference between the memory module and the cooling module is the addition of the memory unit within the memory module (see Figure 8 in Liao; see Figure 6 in Urita).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hood (US Patent No. 6058009) in view of Ou (US Publication No. 2014/0211420) and Tracy (US Publication No. 2008/0259556).
Regarding claim 20, Hood discloses a modular computer system (10) comprising: a chassis (12): defining a slot (12a) arranged along a lateral side of the chassis (side of 12); and comprising an electronic communication port (52) arranged within the chassis (12) and extending into the slot (12a); a controller (14, 16) arranged within the chassis (12) and electronically coupled to the electronic communication port (52, via 50); a first heat pipe (32) thermally coupled to the controller (14, 16) and extending proximal the slot (12a) of the chassis (12); a module kit (see col. 3, ln. 19-29) comprising: a power module (42) comprising: a first frame (housing of 42) defining a first external geometry (see Figure 1) and configured to transiently couple the lateral side of the chassis (side of 12) to locate the power module within the slot (12a); a first fan (46) configured to thermally couple the first heat pipe (32) to dissipate heat transferred from the controller (14, 16); and a battery (42) configured to electrically couple the electronic communication port (52) to transfer electrical energy stored within the battery (42) to the controller (14, 16).
Hood does not disclose a graphics processing module comprising: a second frame defining a second external geometry and configured to transiently couple the lateral side of the chassis to locate the graphics processing module within the slot; a graphics processing unit configured to electronically couple the electronic communication port to transmit electrical signals from the graphics processing unit to the controller; a second heat pipe extending within the second frame and thermally coupled to the graphics processing unit; and a second fan configured to thermally couple the first heat pipe and the second heat pipe to dissipate heat transferred from the controller and the graphics processing unit.
However, Ou teaches a graphics processing module (140) comprising: a second frame (housing of 140) defining a second external geometry and configured to transiently couple the lateral side of the chassis (side of 110) to locate the graphics processing module (140) within the slot (111); a graphics processing unit (143) configured to electronically couple the electronic communication port (130) to transmit electrical signals from the graphics processing unit (143) to the controller (120); a second fan (170) configured to dissipate heat transferred from the controller (120) and the graphics processing unit (143; NOTE: because fan 17 is located directly adjacent to motherboard 120, fan 170 is held to be thermally coupled to 120 and thus capable of dissipating at least some heat generated by 120).
Because Hood also suggests different modules can be placed within slot 12a (see Col. 3, Ln. 19-29 in Hood), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the GPU module of Ou to the kit of modules in Hood. Doing so would have increased the functionality and modularity of the system, by allowing a user to connect a GPU to the motherboard for the enhanced ability to perform massive numbers of calculations required for graphics processing (see Paragraphs [0005]-[0009] in Ou).
Hood in view of Ou does not teach a graphics processing module defining a second heat pipe extending within the second frame and thermally coupled to the graphics processing unit; a second fan configured to thermally couple the first heat pipe and the second heat pipe.
However, Tracy teaches a graphics processing module (12) defining a second heat pipe (70) extending within the second frame (40) and thermally coupled to the graphics processing unit (60, including 62); a second fan (64) configured to thermally couple to the second heat pipe (70).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the graphics heat pipe of Tracy to the graphics processing module of Hood as modified by Ou. Doing so would have increased heat dissipation of the graphics processing unit (see Paragraph [0008] in Tracy).
Regarding the functional limitation, “the second fan configured to thermally couple the first heat pipe and the second heat pipe to dissipate heat transferred from the controller and the graphics processing unit,” because the structure of the system of Hood as modified by Ou and Tracy is identical to the claimed structure, the system of Hood as modified by Ou and Tracy is considered to be as capable of performing the function as the claimed invention, absent any claimed structural difference. See MPEP § 2114 I & II, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function... A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus' if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” In the instant case, when the heat pipe of Tracy is combined to the graphics processing module of Hood as modified by Ou, the structure results in the second fan thermally connecting the graphics processing heat pipe to the controller heat pipe, satisfying the condition “the second fan configured to thermally couple the first heat pipe and the second heat pipe to dissipate heat transferred from the controller and the graphics processing unit.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7-9, 11-12, and 15 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.
Claim 4 claims the system of Claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to: during a first time period: at a first time, read a first state of charge from the first battery arranged within the chassis; in response to the first state of charge exceeding a threshold state of charge, direct electrical energy stored within the second battery to the controller; at a second time following the first time, read a second state of charge from the second battery of the power module; and in response to the second state of charge falling below a threshold state of charge, direct electrical energy stored within the first battery to the controller; and during a second time period: at a third time, read a third state of charge from the first battery arranged within the chassis; and in response to the third state of charge falling below a threshold state of charge: direct electrical energy stored within the second battery to the controller; and direct electrical energy stored within the second battery to the first battery to increase electrical energy stored within the first battery.
Claim 7 claims the system of Claim 1: wherein the chassis further comprises: a latch arranged proximal the slot and configured to de-couple a module, in the module kit, from the slot of the chassis responsive application of an actuation force from a user; and a proximity sensor coupled to the latch; and wherein the controller is configured to: read a first electrical value from the proximity sensor; detect the latch in an open position based on the first electrical value; and in response to detecting the latch in the open position: generate a prompt requesting a user to select a module, in the module kit, configured to install within the slot of the chassis; display the prompt at the display for the user; and in response to receiving selection of the graphics processing module, in the module kit, initiate a graphics module swap mode to deactivate software applications executing on the controller, disable content rendered on the display, and disable a power connection to the electronic communication port.
Claims 8-9 would be allowable due to their dependency on claim 7.
Claim 11 teaches the system of Claim 10, wherein the chassis further comprises: a latch arranged proximal the slot and configured to de-couple a module, in the module kit, from the slot of the chassis responsive to application of an actuation force from a user; and a proximity sensor coupled to the latch; and wherein the controller is configured to: read a first electrical value from the proximity sensor; detect the latch in an open position based on the first electrical value; and in response to detecting the latch in the open position: generate a prompt requesting a user to select a module, in the module kit, configured to install within the slot of the chassis; display the prompt at the display for the user; and in response to receiving selection of the memory module, in the module kit, initiate a memory module swap mode to deactivate software applications executing on the controller and transfer working data stored in the second memory unit to the first memory unit; and following transfer of the working data to the first memory unit, disable a power connection to the electronic communication port.
Claim 12 claims the system of Claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: access a graphics processing allocation value from the controller for rending content on the display; and in response to the graphics processing value exceeding a graphics processing allocation threshold: generate a prompt requesting a user to install the graphics processing module within the slot of the chassis; display the prompt at the display for the user; and initiate a graphics module swap mode, during the graphics module swap mode to: deactivate software applications executing on the controller; disable content rendered on the display; and disable a power connection to the electronic communication port.
Claim 15 claims the system of Claim 1: wherein the chassis: defines a second slot: arranged on a second lateral side, opposite the first lateral side, of the chassis; and defining a rectangular geometry inset a bottom side of the chassis; and comprises: a second electronic communication port extending into the second slot and electronically coupled to the controller; an input deck comprising an array of couplers, each coupler in the array of couplers comprising a magnetic element and a port electrically coupled to the controller; and an access panel arranged across the input deck over the electronic communication port and operable in an open configuration to enable a user to access the electronic communication port; and wherein the module kit further comprises: an interface module comprising: an enclosure configured to transiently couple the second lateral side of the chassis to locate the interface module within the second slot; a first connector arranged on a first side of the enclosure and configured to interface with a peripheral device; and a second connector arranged on a second side, opposite the first side, of the enclosure and configured to electronically couple the second electronic communication port to transmit electrical signals from the first connector to the controller; a keyboard module comprising: an array of keys; and a third connector: configured to magnetically couple the array of couplers to transiently retain the keyboard module across an upper region of the input deck; and configured to electronically couple the array of couplers to transmit electrical signals from the array of keys to the controller; and a trackpad module comprising: a touch sensor; and a second connector: configured to magnetically couple the array of couplers to transiently retain the trackpad module across a lower region of the input deck; and configured to electronically couple the array of couplers to transmit electrical signals from the touch sensor to the controller.
None of the cited references, alone or in combination, teach each and every limitation from the claims above. Therefore, claims 4, 7-9, 11-12 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Nos. 5132876 5481616 5772500 5786984 5898568 6108199 6243260 6252770 6373706 6563703 6954357 7652881 7911781 7948750 8625266 8693196 11262822 and 11320876 also teach elements of the claimed device.
US Publication Nos. 20210191461 20170123456 20100195279 20080270663 also teach elements of the claimed device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GAGE STEPHEN CRUM whose telephone number is (571)272-3373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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, Allen Parker can be reached at (303)297-4722. 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.
/GAGE CRUM/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
gsc
Prosecution Insights