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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-23 are pending and have been examined in this application.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 17-19 & 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Number 2,652,133 A to Leigh in view of US Patent Number 3,403,615 to Dayus.
A) As per Claims 17 & 21, Leigh teaches an air guiding member (Leigh: Figure 1) for guiding cooling airflow from an air inlet to an air outlet, comprising:
a bracket body (Leigh: Figure 1, Item 2);
a plurality of air blocking plates (Leigh: Figure 1, Items 4) connected to the bracket body and spaced along a first predetermined direction; and
a plurality of air deflecting plates (Leigh: Figures 1-2, Item 16) respectively connected to the air blocking plates and extending towards the air inlet, the air blocking plates block a passage of cooling airflow, and an air outlet gap is formed between a pair of adjacent air blocking plates of the plurality of air blocking plates, one of the air deflecting plates is connected to an edge of one of the air blocking plates (Leigh: Best shown in Figure 2, Items 4 block airflow with gap Item 3 between).
Leigh does not teach that the one of the air deflecting plates and the one of the air blocking plates are arranged at an obtuse angle.
However, Dayus teaches the one of the air deflecting plates and the one of the air blocking plates are arranged at an obtuse angle (Dayus: Figure 3, Item 23).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Leigh by making at least one of the louvers at an obtuse angle, as taught by Dayus, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Leigh with these aforementioned teachings of Dayus since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the louver angle pattern of Dayus for the louver angle pattern of Leigh.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Leigh in view of Dayus does not explicitly teach that the angle is 100 degrees.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having the specific angle of 100 degrees solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that a 100 degree angle would perform equally well with Leigh in view of Dayus. Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the angle of Leigh in view of Dayus 100 degrees because the specific angle does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
B) As per Claim 18, Leigh in view of Dayus teaches that the air blocking plates are coplanar with the bracket body (Leigh: Figure 2, Items 2 & 4 are co-planar).
C) As per Claim 19, Leigh in view of Dayus teaches that the air guiding member is an integral piece (Leigh: Figure 5, all cut from same integral piece).
D) As per Claim 22, Leigh in view of Dayus teaches that an extension length of one of the air deflecting plates is greater than or equal to a width of the air outlet gap in the first predetermined direction (Leigh: Figure 5, vertical length of Item 16 is longer than width of opening from 18-19).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 & 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 23 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17-19 & 21-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
