DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed March 13, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 9 has been canceled. Currently, claims 1-8 and 10 are pending in the application.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicants argument that Tomoyuki fails to teach that the determined flow rate is determined based on structural arrangement of the electronic device, the Examiner respectfully disagrees (see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 3/13/20263, pages 5-7).
Specifically, as provided in the updated rejection of claim 1 below, Tomoyuki further teaches that the determined flow rate is determined based on the location and number of the temperature sensors 31 attached to various electronic components found within the electronic device, which sets the fan speed and thus the determined flow rate intended to be measured by the wind speed sensor 35 (see translation page 4, para. 3).
Therefore, the Examiner maintains that before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to arrive at the invention of currently amended claim 1 in view of the teachings of Tomoyuki.
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 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoyuki (JP 2009-217776 A, hereinafter Tomoyuki).
Regarding claim 1, Tomoyuki teaches an electronic device (10) comprising: a shell including an accommodation space (see Fig. 3, shell 14 has accommodation space as shown); a fan arranged in the accommodation space (see Fig. 3, fan 33); a dust filter assembly at least partially arranged at an air opening of the shell and configured to filter dust (see Fig. 3 and translation page 5, para. 2, dust filter 39 arranged at an air opening of the shell 14 as shown and described); a wind speed sensor arranged on a side of the air opening of the fan and configured to detect a first flow rate of air on the side of the air opening of the fan (see Fig. 3 and translation page 6, para. 4, wind speed sensor 35 arranged on a side of the air opening of the fan 33 for detecting a first flow rate of air as shown and described); and a controller electrically connected to the wind speed sensor and configured to determine whether the dust filter assembly needs to be unblocked based on the first flow rate and a determined flow rate (see Fig. 3 and translation page 6, para. 4 through page 7, para. 7, controller 34 is an abnormality detection device that determines if an abnormality occurs in the first flow rate relative to a determined (threshold) flow rate due to blockage of the dust filter assembly), the determined flow rate being determined based on structural arrangement of the electronic device (see translation page 4, para. 3, the determined flow rate is determined based on the location and number of the temperature sensors 31 attached to various electronic components within the electronic device, which sets the fan speed and thus the determined flow rate intended to be measured by the wind speed sensor 35).
Tomoyuki fails to specifically teach that the controller is configured to specifically indicate that the dust filter assembly needs to be cleaned.
However, Tomoyuki teaches that the user is warned that there is a blockage of the dust filter assembly, wherein the user is directed to take necessary steps to remove the obstacles of the dust filter assembly to return flow (see translation page 6, para. 4 through page 7, para. 7, controller 34 is an abnormality detection device that determines if an abnormality occurs in the flow rate due to blockage of the dust filter assembly and directs the user to take corrective action).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, for the user to clean the dust filter assembly device of Tomoyuki when prompted that the flow rate through the dust filter assembly is below threshold. This is because, as suggested by Tomoyuki, it is known that the flow rate through the dust filter assembly reduces upon collection of dust, and thus one of ordinary skill would have known to clean the dust filter to improve the flow (see translation, page 6, para. 4)
Regarding claim 2, Tomoyuki above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Tomoyuki teaches a functional assembly arranged within the accommodation space (see Fig. 3, functional assembly CPU 31 located within the accommodation space of the shell 14); a circuit board (16) arranged between the fan (33) and the functional assembly (31), the wind speed sensor being arranged located on the circuit board (see Fig. 3, wind speed sensor 35 located on the circuit board 16 as shown).
Regarding claim 3, Tomoyuki above teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2.
Tomoyuki above fails to specifically teach that the circuit board is in a cuboid shape, a connection through-hole is arranged at a center part of the circuit board, and a slot is arranged at a first edge of the circuit board; and a protrusion is arranged in the accommodation space and is engaged with the slot, and the circuit board is fastened and connected through the connection through-hole.
However, Tomoyuki does teach that the wind speed sensor is attached in the vicinity of the cooling fan (see translation page 4, para. 3).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Tomoyuki such that the wind speed sensor was mounted via a circuit board to the accommodation space through various well-known means, including slots, screws, clamps, etc. This is because it is well-known in the art of sensing to mount sensors via circuit board through holes and slots so as to provide a stable mounting point for the sensor.
Regarding claim 5, Tomoyuki above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Tomoyuki teaches that the controller is further configured to determine input power of the electronic device based on the first flow rate and the determined flow rate (see translation page 6, para. 7 and 8, controller determines input power reduction of the electronic device based on abnormality of the first flow rate and the determined (threshold) flow rate).
Regarding claim 6, Tomoyuki above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Tomoyuki teaches a notification assembly arranged at the shell and configured to be connected to the controller (see translation page 6, para. 8, notification assembly including LED warning light arranged on the device shell and connects to controller 34); when determining that the first flow rate is smaller than a first determined flow rate, the controller is further configured to: control the notification assembly for notification; and/or send alert information or an alert email (see translation page 6, para. 8, controller determines if the first flow rate is lower than a first threshold flow rate and controls the notification assembly including LED warning light indicator and may also send alert information to the user display).
Regarding claim 7, Tomoyuki above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Tomoyuki teaches that when determining that the first flow rate is smaller than a second determined flow rate, the controller is configured to control input power of the electronic device to be reduced (see Fig. 7a-b and translation page 7, para. 1-4, the first flow rate is compared to expected wind speed which may vary and thus includes various determined (threshold) flow rates for controlling input power as described).
Regarding claim 8, Tomoyuki above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Tomoyuki teaches that when determining that the first flow rate is smaller than the second determined flow rate, the controller is configured to control the input power of the electronic device to be reduced for a first determined value (see translation page 6, para. 7 and 8, controller determines input power reduction of the electronic device based on abnormality of the first flow rate and a second determined (threshold) flow rate V (R).
Tomoyuki fails to specifically teach that when determining that the first flow rate is smaller than a third determined flow rate, the controller is configured to control the input power of the electronic device to be reduced for a second determined value; and the second determined flow rate is greater than the third determined flow rate, and the first determined value is smaller than the second determined value.
However, Tomoyuki teaches that additional power control steps may be taken as corrective action based on the wind speed and the temperatures of various devices (see translation page 8, para. 2-4, access to the HDD and power provided to various devices may be controlled to prevent damage to the electronic device); wherein if the wind speed is below a threshold such that the temperature continues to rise, power is terminated to the device (see translation page 3, para. 3).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Tomoyuki such that several wind speed thresholds were utilized to reduce power consumption and thus heat generation by various levels in the electronic device. This would allow the electronic device to balance normal operation against heat generation in the device such that corrective action may be taken prior to damage to the device as is known in the art.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoyuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yan-Jun et al. (CN111896098A, hereinafter Yan).
Regarding claim 4, Tomoyuki above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Tomoyuki fails to teach an FPGA chip electrically connected to the wind speed sensor and the controller and configured to improve a transmission speed between the controller and the wind speed sensor.
Yan teaches use of a FPGA to collect sensor signals due to parallel operation configured to improve data speed transmission between the sensor and the processor (see translation page 3, para. 7).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Tomoyuki such that an FPGA was utilized as suggested by Yan. This is because a FPGA increases data transmission speeds due to parallel operation as suggested by Yan (see translation page 3, para. 7).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoyuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shirakami et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0051890 A1, hereinafter Shirakami).
Regarding claim 10, Tomoyuki above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Tomoyuki fails to teach at least two fans spaced apart in the accommodation space; and at least two wind speed sensors arranged correspondingly at air openings of the at least two fans and configured to detect first flow rates of the air on sides of the air openings of the at least two fans.
Shirakami teaches at least two fans spaced apart in an accommodation space (see Fig. 9A, at least two fans 1 provided in the accommodation space as shown); and at least two wind speed sensors arranged correspondingly at air openings of the at least two fans and configured to detect first flow rates of the air on sides of the air openings of the at least two fans (see Fig. 9A and [0053], at least two wind speed sensors 3 configured to detect flow rates at exit air openings corresponding to the at least two fans as described).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Tomoyuki such that multiple fans and sensors were utilized as suggested by Shirakami. This would allow for a more accurate measure of airflow when multiple fans are utilized.
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 NATHANIEL T WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick Assouad can be reached at (571) 272-2210. 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.
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights