DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed on 05/27/2026 have been received, to which the Applicant is thanked. Claim 2 has been cancelled and the subject matter moved into claim 1; dependency of claim 3 is now from claim 1. Claim 3 remains 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.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered, but have not been found to be persuasive.
In response to Applicants regarding newly amended claim language,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments are directed to new amendments to the claim language, including limitations pertaining to the direction of the reverse airflow, which have been addressed in the rejection below. Additionally, on page 11 the Applicant tangentially argues that “Wu does not provide that the passive damper remains open during normal operation to avoid air-pressure drop and maintain the heat-dissipation airflow at a high flow rate, while under wind-driven rain conditions, a reverse airflow flows upward to drive the damper blade to close the air-guiding channel, thereby completely preventing rainwater from flowing back to the air outlet through the vents or entering the cabinet.”, to which the Examiner would point out that no current claim language exists to require such limitations as the passive damper remaining open during normal operations to avoid air pressure drops and to maintain the heat-dissipation at a high flow rate, much less any limitation Wu teaches, as argued by the Applicant on page 11. If the Applicant does insist such a difference, then the Examiner would suggest the Applicant amend the claims to reflect those ideas and positively recite such claim language.
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 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2016/0302326), hereinafter referred to as Chen, in view of Wu (CN101634477).
Regarding claim 1, Chen (US 2016/0302326) shows an outdoor cabinet with a protective damper comprising:
a cabinet comprising an air inlet (231, Fig. 6) and an air outlet (241, Fig. 6),
wherein the cabinet comprises of a first cabinet lateral wall opposite a second cabinet lateral wall (Fig. 1/4, Fig. 4 shows the structure on the second cabinet lateral wall, with Fig. 1 detailing the enclosure 1, of which the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand the device is to comprise of an opposite, first cabinet lateral wall, as the main purpose of the device is to contain and control the airflow within),
wherein the air inlet (231, Fig. 6) is disposed on the second cabinet lateral wall of the cabinet (Fig. 1/4/5), the air outlet (241, Fig. 6) is disposed on the second cabinet lateral wall of the cabinet (Fig. 5 – the air outlet is disposed on a second cabinet lateral wall, as shown in Fig. 5), and the first cabinet lateral wall and the second cabinet lateral wall are corresponding to each other (Fig. 1/4 – the first cabinet lateral wall and the second cabinet lateral wall are corresponding to each other);
and
a passive damper (5, Fig. 5, ¶0042 – elements 5 will be lifted by the airflow blown from the exhaust port 241 by the exhaust fan 24, meaning, when the air is not blown by the fan, the dampers 5 shut by the lack of air pressure inside the enclosure, performing the function of a passive damper) disposed on the second cabinet lateral wall (Fig. 5) and comprising an exhaust fan (24, Fig. 5) and a damper blade (5, Fig. 5/6), wherein the exhaust fan is disposed adjacent to the air outlet (Fig. 5), and the damper blade is disposed outside the air outlet (Fig. 5 – the damper blades 5 are disposed outside of the air outlet 241) for closing or opening the air outlet (Fig. 5/6), and
a cover (22, Fig. 5) covering the air outlet of the cabinet (Fig. 5) and collaboratively forming an air-guiding channel (see Annotated Figure 1) with the second cabinet lateral wall (Fig. 5), wherein the air-guiding channel is communicated up and down (see Annotated Figure 1), and includes an upper part of the air-guiding channel in communication with an accommodation space (11, Fig. 1/5/6, see Annotated Figure 1) in the cabinet through the air outlet (Fig. 6), and a lower part of the air-guiding channel in communication with an outdoor environment outside the cabinet through a vent (222, Fig. 6, see Annotated Figure 1), wherein the passive damper is disposed in the air-guiding channel (Fig. 5, see Annotated Figure 1),
wherein the exhaust fan (24, Fig. 5) is operated to generate a heat-dissipation airflow flowing inside the cabinet (11, Fig. 6) from the air inlet to the air outlet (Fig. 6), and the damper blade allows the heat-dissipation airflow to flow downward through the passive damper and be discharged from the air outlet (Fig. 6 – the damper blade of the passive damper 5 allows the heat-dissipation airflow to flow downward through the passive damper 5 and be discharged from the air outlet 241);
wherein when a wind pressure outside the cabinet is greater than a wind pressure inside the cabinet and a reverse airflow is generated, the reverse airflow flows upward to drive the damper blade to close the air outlet for protecting electronic devices (¶0002) installed in the cabinet (Fig. 5/6, see Annotated Figure 1, ¶0042 - elements 5 will be lifted by the airflow blown from the exhaust port 241 by the exhaust fan 24, meaning, when the air is not blown by the fan, the dampers 5 shut by the lack of air pressure inside the enclosure, performing the function of a passive damper; to which, when a wind pressure outside the cabinet is greater than a wind pressure inside the cabinet and a reverse airflow is generated, the reverse airflow flows upward through the vents 222 to drive the dampers further shut by applying pressure to push the dampers against the structure in the air guiding channel, so the damper blade can close the air outlet for protecting electronic devices, as detailed in ¶0002, that the cabinet is for electronic equipments installed in the cabinet).
However, Chen lacks showing wherein the air inlet is disposed on a first cabinet lateral wall of the cabinet, the air outlet is disposed on a second cabinet lateral wall of the cabinet, and an active damper disposed on the first cabinet lateral wall and arranged adjacent to the air inlet.
Wu (CN101634477), a ventilated enclosure with dampers, is in the same field of endeavor as Chen which is a ventilated enclosure with dampers.
Wu teaches wherein the air inlet (50, Fig. 2, ¶0029) is disposed on a first cabinet lateral wall (Fig. 2) of the cabinet (Fig. 2), the air outlet (244, Fig. 2) is disposed on a second cabinet lateral wall of the cabinet (Fig. 2),
an active damper (52, ¶0029) disposed on the first cabinet lateral wall and arranged adjacent to the air inlet (Fig. 2, ¶0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the air inlet and the first cabinet lateral wall of Chen to incorporate the teachings of the air inlet and active damper of Wu, which would provide a heat exchanging system that can compensate for insufficient dissipation capacity of high end communication devices and their environments (¶0010).
PNG
media_image1.png
622
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 10, Chen shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the air inlet.
However, Chen lacks showing wherein the active damper further comprises an inflow fan arranged adjacent to the air inlet.
Wu teaches wherein the active damper (52, Fig. 2) further comprises an inflow fan (40, Fig. 2) arranged adjacent to the air inlet (Fig. 2 – the inflow fan 40 is arranged adjacent to the air inlet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the air inlet and the first cabinet lateral wall of Chen to incorporate the teachings of the air inlet and active damper of Wu, which would provide a heat exchanging system that can compensate for insufficient dissipation capacity of high end communication devices and their environments (¶0010).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights