DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2024/0028092 A1) in view of Nelson et al. (US 5,552,960)
Re. claim 1: Cho discloses:
an electronic device (2), comprising:
a logic body (211), having a plurality of first end openings (52) and a plurality of first bottom openings (51, 55 combined), wherein the first end openings are disposed on a first end of the logic body, and the first bottom openings are disposed on a bottom of the logic body and are adjacent to the first end; (see fig. 3, 4; para. 0080-0082)
a heat dissipation fin (561), disposed inside an interior of the logic body and corresponding to the first bottom openings; and (see fig. 5; para. 0082)
a rotating bracket (25), rotatably disposed at the bottom, wherein (see fig. 4, 5; para. 0082-0086)
in a closed mode, the rotating bracket is close to the bottom and covers the first bottom openings; and (see fig. 4, 5; para. 0082-0086)
in an open mode, the rotating bracket is unfolded from the bottom and exposes the first bottom openings. (see fig. 4, 5; para. 0082-0086)
Cho fails to disclose:
The rotating bracket is unfolded from the bottom to lift the logic body relative to a plane.
However, Nelson discloses:
A rotating bracket (45) is unfolded from the bottom (46) of a logic body (40) to lift the logic body relative to a plane. (see fig. 3, 4; col. 6, 7)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rotating bracket taught by Nelson to the electronic device of Cho. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to dissipate the heat from the processor of the logic body. (see Nelson col. 2)
Re. claim 2: Cho discloses wherein the logic body has a plurality of second bottom openings (304) and is away from the first bottom openings. (see fig. 3; para. 0075)
Re. claim 3: Cho discloses a storage unit (memory 130)) disposed inside the interior and corresponding to the second bottom openings. (see fig. 1; para. 0028-0032)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Nelson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lai et al. (US 2009/0021910 A1).
Re. claim 10: Cho and Nelson fail to disclose:
wherein the rotating bracket has a plurality of grid perforations, wherein in the closed mode, a gap is between the rotating bracket and the bottom, and the grid perforations are misaligned from the first bottom openings; and in the open mode, the grid perforations are away from the first bottom openings.
However, Lai discloses:
wherein a detachable filter (170) comprising a plurality of grid perforations (172), (see fig. 1; para. 0016)
wherein in the closed mode, a gap is between the filter (170) and the side of the housing (130), and the grid perforations are misaligned from the first bottom openings (132); and (see fig. 1, 2; para. 0014-0016)
in the open mode (removed mode), the grid perforations are away from the first bottom openings. (see fig. 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include grid perforations taught by Lai to the rotating bracket of Cho. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to block dust or foreign materials from entering the housing while still allowing airflow. (Lai para. 0007, 0015)
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho and Nelson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tarnutzer et al. (US 8,567,740 B2).
Re. claims 11-15: Cho and Nelson fail to disclose:
a stopper disposed on the bottom.
wherein the stopper has a plurality of positioning holes, the rotating bracket has a positioning point adapted to be engaged with one of the positioning holes to fix an unfolding angle of the rotating bracket relative to the bottom.
wherein the stopper is rotatably disposed at the bottom.
wherein the rotating bracket links the stopper to rotate.
wherein the stopper has:
a fixed part, disposed on the bottom; and
a rotating part, disposed on the bottom and rotatably connected to a side of the fixed part, wherein the rotating bracket links the rotating part to rotate.
However, Tarnutzer discloses:
a stopper (16) disposed on the bottom (bottom of 12) (see fig. 1-3; col. 4)
wherein the stopper has a plurality of positioning holes (between adjacent ribs 22, 122), the rotating bracket (18) has a positioning point adapted to be engaged with one of the positioning holes to fix an unfolding angle of the rotating bracket relative to the bottom. (see fig. 2, 4-7; col. 4, 6)
wherein the stopper is rotatably disposed at the bottom (attached with hinge 14). (see fig. 2)
wherein the rotating bracket (18) links the stopper (16) to rotate
wherein the stopper has:
a fixed part (edge at hinge side near 14), disposed on the bottom (bottom of 12); and
a rotating part (distal edge that engages between ribs 22), disposed on the bottom and rotatably connected to a side of the fixed part, wherein the rotating bracket links the rotating part to rotate. (see fig. 1-3; col. 4)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Cho and Nelson with a stopper with positioning holes and a rotating bracket as taught by Tarnutzer. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to be able to adjust the angle of the base plate and retain its position of rotation. (Tarnutzer col. 4 ln. 8-47)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 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.
Re. claim 4: the limitations of “wherein the logic body has a plurality of third bottom openings adjacent to the first bottom openings” in combination with the remaining limitations in the claim cannot be found in the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 05 February 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed 05 February 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Nelson as seen above. Applicant argues that Cho fails to disclose new limitations of “to lift the logic body relative to a plane.” The Examiner agrees that Cho fails to teach this limitation. However, this limitation is taught by Nelson as explained above. Therefore, claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected as unpatentable over Cho in view of Nelson.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 05 February 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 4, in combination with the claim amendments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 4 has been overcome in view of the claim amendments.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 9 are persuasive because claim 9 depends from claim 4.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 05 February 2026, regarding the rejection of claim 10 has been fully considered but is not persuasive. The Lai reference teaches that the detachable filter can block dust and foreign materials while still allowing for some airflow into the electronic device. Applicant appears to argue that all the airflow should be blocked by the misaligned perforations. However, such a limitation is not found in the claim.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-14, filed 05 February 2026, regarding the rejection of claim 11 has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Applicant argues that combining the teachings of Cho and Tarnutzer would lead to a motor burnout. However, there is no motor found in the claims. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., electric motor) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The mechanism of Tarnutzer would not require a motor like Cho because it is a manually operated mechanism.
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 ADAM B DRAVININKAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9a-6p MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAYPRAKASH (JP) N GANDHI can be reached at 571-272-3740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
June 12, 2026
/ADAM B DRAVININKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights