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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 5/2/2024 is acknowledged.
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 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.
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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALACHANDRESWARAN (US 20170184863 A1, hereinafter BALACHANDRESWARAN) in view of Selvakumar (US 20190075689 A1, hereinafter Selvakumar)
Claim 1. BALACHANDRESWARAN teaches an electronic device (), comprising:
an external frame (102, fig 1) defining:
an internal volume (space within 102, [0041] recites ‘visor housing 102 houses various heat sources’);
an air inlet port (112, fig 1); and
an air exhaust port (114, fig 1);
a fan (214, fig 2) configured to draw air into the internal volume through the inlet port and push air out from the internal volume through the exhaust port ([0054] recites ‘each fan 214 draws ambient air through the intake vents into the visor housing as shown by arrows a, and blows the air across the fins 212 and the dissipation end 218 of the heat pipe 210, through the outlet 215 and exhaust vents 214 into the surrounding environment as shown by the arrows e’), the fan including a housing (housing of 214, fig 4);
wherein: the housing defines a fan inlet (213, fig 4) and a fan outlet (215, fig 4) perpendicular to the fan inlet (fig 4 shows 213 going into the page while 215 is pointing to the top right); and
the air inlet port, the fan inlet, the fan outlet, and the air exhaust port define an airflow path (bottom of fig 3 to the top left and top right of fig 3 marked by ‘e’) with the air inlet port (indicated by ‘a’ of fig 3) upstream from the fan inlet (fig 3), the fan inlet upstream from the fan outlet (fig 3), and the fan outlet upstream from the air exhaust port (indicated by ‘e’ of fig 3);
a display assembly (600, fig 6) disposed in the internal volume (since [0055] recites ‘For reference, this is a view as would be seen by a wearer of the HMD if at least the motherboard and display were absent from the user's view’), the airflow path defined by an air gap disposed between and separating the display assembly and the fan (since the motherboard is between the display and the fan), wherein an axis rotation of the fan (axis going into the page of fig 4) is substantially perpendicular to the display assembly and the fan inlet aligns with the display assembly (comparing figs 4, 6 shows that the axis rotation of the fan is horizontal in fig 6 while the display assembly is vertical in fig 6, vertical and horizontal are perpendicular directions); and
However BALACHANDRESWARAN fails to teach:
an internal frame () coupled to the external frame (), the internal frame disposed between the display assembly and the air gap between the display assembly and the fan (), the internal frame defining an opening () aligned with the fan inlet ().
Selvakumar teaches an internal frame (916 including portions that touch 918, 920, fig 9) coupled to the external frame (fig 9), the internal frame disposed between the display assembly and the air gap between the display assembly and the fan (fig 9), the internal frame defining an opening (space inside 916) aligned with the fan inlet (fig 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an internal frame as taught by Selvakumar into the device of BALACHANDRESWARAN. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify BALACHANDRESWARAN in the above manner for the purpose of directing airflow across the processor component(s) ([0006] recites ‘a pair of cooling subsystems disposed within the visor housing to dissipate heat generated by the at least one processor from the exhaust vents and receive air flow from the intake vents’).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALACHANDRESWARAN in view of Selvakumar, further in view of Horng (US 20080083527 A1, hereinafter Horng)
Claim 2. BALACHANDRESWARAN in view of Selvakumar teaches the electronic device of claim 1, but fails to teach that the fan is coupled to the external frame via the internal frame ().
Horng (fig 9) teaches a fan (5) is coupled to the external frame (4’’) via the internal frame (3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the heat dissipating plate as taught by Horng into the device of BALACHANDRESWARAN in view of Selvakumar. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify BALACHANDRESWARAN in view of Selvakumar in the above manner for the purpose of providing a better efficiency of heat dissipation (Horng [0035]).
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALACHANDRESWARAN in view of Selvakumar, further in view of Horng (US 20080083527 A1, hereinafter Horng), still further in view of Moghaddam (US 20230247811 A1, hereinafter Moghaddam)
Claim 3. BALACHANDRESWARAN in view of Selvakumar, further in view of Horng teaches the electronic device of claim 2, but fail to teach the housing includes:
a first housing shell defining the fan inlet;
a second housing shell; and
a fan blade disposed between the first housing shell and the second housing shell.
Moghaddam teaches a first housing shell (housing shell between 204 and 1002 in fig 10 including fins 802 of figs 8, 9, comparable to fins 1002, 1006 of figs 10-12) defining the fan inlet;
a second housing shell (902, fig 9); and
a fan blade (904) disposed between the first housing shell and the second housing shell (fig 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arrangement as taught by Moghaddam into the device of BALACHANDRESWARAN in view of Selvakumar, further in view of Horng. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify BALACHANDRESWARAN in view of Selvakumar, further in view of Horng in the above manner for the purpose of having a compact, light weight design (Moghaddam [0033] recites ‘more control when mitigating heat’, and also ‘compact, can have low weight, and can control the temperature with the fan's speed’).
Claim 4. BALACHANDRESWARAN in view of Selvakumar, further in view of Horng, still further in view of Moghaddam teaches the electronic device of claim 3, wherein Moghaddam further teaches the first housing shell and the second housing shell define the fan outlet ([0034] recites ‘The integrated fan can be configured to pull air through the heat sink channels and to push exhausted air up towards the electronic component’).
Claim 5. BALACHANDRESWARAN in view of Selvakumar, further in view of Horng, still further in view of Moghaddam teaches the electronic device of claim 3, further comprising a processor (BALACHANDRESWARAN 202, fig 2; Selvakumar 922, fig 9) disposed in the internal volume (Selvakumar fig 9, Moghaddam paragraph 0040).
Claim 6. BALACHANDRESWARAN in view of Selvakumar, further in view of Horng, still further in view of Moghaddam teaches the electronic device of claim 5, wherein Moghaddam further teaches the second housing shell is in direct thermal contact with the processor ([0088] recites ‘The electrical connector 306 can be configured to be disposed on a top plate 210. In some examples, the top plate 210 can be made of one or more thermally conductive materials’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate thermally conductive materials between elements 202 and 214 of BALACHANDRESWARAN as taught by Moghaddam into the device of BALACHANDRESWARAN in view of Selvakumar, further in view of Horng, still further in view of Moghaddam. Simple substitution of one known element (thermally conductive material) for another to obtain predictable results (improved cooling) is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Claim 7. BALACHANDRESWARAN in view of Selvakumar, further in view of Horng, still further in view of Moghaddam teaches the electronic device of claim 6, wherein the fan is disposed between the internal frame and the processor (Moghaddam fig 10, Selvakumar fig 9 shows 940 between 960 and 922).
Claim 8. BALACHANDRESWARAN in view of Selvakumar, further in view of Horng, still further in view of Moghaddam teaches the electronic device of claim 7, wherein Moghaddam further teaches the fan is configured to convectively cool the display assembly ([0092] recites ‘The integrated fan 702 can actively cool the µ-OLED display panel 204’) and conductively cool the processor ([0098] recites ‘The plurality of fins 1002 are sandwiched between the electronic component 202 and the µOLED display panel 204, and form heat sink channels 1004 (as introduced in FIG. 10)’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate thermally conductive materials between elements 922 and 940 of Selvakumar as taught by Moghaddam into the device of Selvakumar in view of Horng, further in view of Moghaddam. Simple substitution of one known element (thermally conductive material) for another to obtain predictable results (improved cooling) is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular elements, columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive. Applicant argues:
‘Balachandreswaran fails to teach or suggest these claim elements. Specifically, the Examiner does not directly address that the axis of rotation of the fan is substantially perpendicular to the display assembly nor that the fan inlet aligns with the display assembly.’
However as explained in the rejections above, comparing figs 4, 6 shows that the axis rotation of the fan is going into the page of fig 4 and also horizontal in fig 6 while the display assembly is vertical in fig 6. This limitation is met since vertical and horizontal are perpendicular directions.
Applicant further argues:
’Further, the cited portions of Balachandreswaran disclose intake vents and exhaust vents around a periphery of the visor housing and fans adjacent a motherboard but is silent with regard to the above-mentioned elements. Consequently, Balachandreswaran fails to teach or suggest at least these limitations of independent claim 1 noted above.’
However, as shown in Balachandreswaran fig 4, element 213 is in a depth direction relative to the page while element 215 is in a vertical/horizontal direction relative to the page, and these two directions are perpendicular. In the image below, elements 215 and e are perpendicular to element 213.
PNG
media_image1.png
1196
1718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS R BURTNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0966. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Allen Parker can be reached on 303-297-4722. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS R BURTNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /ROCKSHANA D CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841