Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/441,042

PLANAR ASSEMBLY HANDLE FOR HEAT SINK OPTIMIZATION

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Feb 14, 2024
Examiner
JONES, GORDON A
Art Unit
3763
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
DELL PRODUCTS, L.P.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
331 granted / 548 resolved
-9.6% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+39.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
65 currently pending
Career history
613
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
50.3%
+10.3% vs TC avg
§102
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
§112
27.1%
-12.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 548 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Claims 15-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on no other methods of assembly. Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 12/04/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no other method of manufacture has been provided, and no burdensome search is present. This is not found persuasive because additive manufacture is another method to construct the assembly of claim 1. Additionally, the product can be bonded with a TIM to enable a heat sink coupled to the planar assembly. Further, the second argument is not responsive to the restriction requirement because a burdensome search is outlined yet applicant has not responded to the details of the burdensome search outlined in the restriction requirement. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 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 8-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 8 recites the limitation of “a heat sink” (second instance), wherein it is unclear what “a heat sink” is referring to since the exact term “a heat sink” has already been recited in the claim. Is the term “a heat sink” requiring that there are multiple “a heat sink” or is the term referring back to the previously recited term? Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite and determined to be an antecedent basis issue. For examination purposes, the phrase has been interpreted as -- the heat sink -- for clarity. The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from a claim that has been rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by PARIGOT US 2024/0206073 Al. Re claim 1, PARIGOT teach a handle comprising: a first member (annotated fig ); a second member (annotated fig ), wherein the second member extends substantially perpendicular from a first surface of the first member and is mechanically interfaced between the first member and a third member (annotated fig ); and the third member, wherein the third member comprises a plurality of planar assembly alignment features (25a, 25b) configured to align the handle relative to a planar assembly to enable a heat sink (7) coupled to the planar assembly to extend over the third member. PNG media_image1.png 664 920 media_image1.png Greyscale Re claim 2, PARIGOT teach wherein the handle is configured to facilitate coupling and uncoupling of the planar assembly to a chassis (3). Re claim 3, PARIGOT teach wherein the plurality of planar assembly alignment features comprises a first recess comprising a first hole and a second recess comprising a second hole (holes for 27a, b). Re claim 4, PARIGOT teach wherein the first recess is configured to enable the heat sink to extend over the first recess (figs). Re claim 5, PARIGOT teach wherein the first hole and the second hole are each configured to receive a fastener (27a, b) configured to mechanically couple the handle to the planar assembly. Re claim 6, PARIGOT teach wherein the first hole is configured to align with a first attach point hole of the planar assembly and the second hole is configured to align with a second attach point hole of the planar assembly (31a, b). Re claim 7, PARIGOT teach wherein the second attach point hole is configured to enable coupling of an information handling resource to the planar assembly (para 28). Re claim 8, PARIGOT teach a system comprising: a planar assembly configured to couple to a heat sink (7); and a handle mechanically coupled to the planar assembly, the handle comprising: a first member; a second member, wherein the second member extends substantially perpendicular from a first surface of the first member and is mechanically interfaced between the first member and a third member (see the rejection of claim1); and the third member, wherein the third member comprises a plurality of planar assembly alignment features configured to align the handle relative to a planar assembly ( 13) to enable a heat sink coupled to the planar assembly to extend over the third member (see the rejection of claim 1). Re claim 9, PARIGOT teach wherein the handle is configured to facilitate coupling and uncoupling of the planar assembly to a chassis (3). Re claim 10, PARIGOT teach wherein the plurality of planar assembly alignment features comprises a first recess comprising a first hole and a second recess comprising a second hole (see the rejection of claim 3). Re claim 11, PARIGOT teach wherein the first recess is configured to enable the heat sink to extend over the first recess (see the rejection of claim 4). Re claim 12, PARIGOT teach wherein the first hole and the second hole are each configured to receive a fastener configured to mechanically couple the handle to the planar assembly (see the rejection of claim 5). Re claim 13, PARIGOT teach wherein the first hole is configured to align with a first attach point hole of the planar assembly and the second hole is configured to align with a second attach point hole of the planar assembly (see the rejection of claim 6). Re claim 14, PARIGOT teach wherein the second attach point hole is configured to enable coupling of an information handling resource to the planar assembly (see the rejection of claim 7). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20040085735 A1, US 20100330824 A1, US 9521757 B2, US 20240401633 A1 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST. 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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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. /GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 14, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595065
100% AMBIENT AIR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12568605
LOOP HEAT PIPE FOR LOW VOLTAGE DRIVES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12528588
VARIABLE CHILLER EXHAUST WITH CROWN VENTILATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12531218
WAFER PLACEMENT TABLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12529524
ULTRA-THIN HEAT PIPE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+39.1%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 548 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month