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 Objections
Claims 1-20 objected to because of the following informalities: The claims utilize the term "annulus" which is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "a part, structure, or marking . Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "substantially straight ribs" of claims 8 and 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 7, 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “approximately” in claim s 7 and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain what widths for the slots are encompassed by "approximately 0.95 millimeters".
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the two spaced-apart projection parts" in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In applying art, the claim has been interpreted as depending upon claim 15 which recites “at least two spaced-apart projecting parts”.
Claims 17-19 depend upon claim 16 and are therefore rejected under 112(b) for the same reason as claim 16.
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.
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.
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) 1-6, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2016/0098068 A1) in view of Birdsong et al. (US 5,938,525).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses an information handling system ( see Liu figure 1) including a vent cover (Liu 101) including a body (see Liu figure 1).
Liu is silent regarding the vent cover comprising slots.
However, in the related field of air diffuser’s Birdsong teaches an air diffuser comprising a vent cover (Birdsong 30) comprising a body (see Birdsong figure 5) having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface (see Birdsong figure 1); and a plurality of slots (Birdsong 42, 44, and 46) positioned within the body extending between the first and second surfaces, the plurality of slots including : first slots (Birdsong 42) having a first length and extending between a first diameter and a second diameter of a first annulus (see annotated figure); and second slots (Birdsong 44) that extend between the second diameter and the third diameter of the second annulus (see annotated figure), the first annulus including the second annulus (see annotated figure). Birdsong teaches the curved slots produce a swirling airflow to minimize turbulence (Birdsong column 5 lines 17-21).
PNG
media_image1.png
490
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Birdsong figure 5 (annotated)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Liu’s vent cover to incorporate Birdsong’s teachings of curved slots arranged in an annular pattern to produce a predictable result of minimizing turbulence.
Regarding claim 2, Liu and Birdsong as applied to claim 1 further teach the vent cover body between the slots define ribs (see annotated figure) extending between the first and second diameter.
PNG
media_image2.png
490
727
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Birdsong figure 5 (annotated)
Regarding claim 3, Liu and Birdsong as applied to claim 2 teach the ribs include a first contiguous portion (see annotated figure) extending between the first and third diameter of a third annulus; and a second portion (see annotated figure) extending between the second diameter and the third diameter of the second annulus, the second portion including at least two spaced-apart projecting parts (see annotated figure)
PNG
media_image3.png
490
846
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Birdsong figure 5 (annotated)
Regarding claim 4, Liu and Birdsong as applied to claim 3 teach the two spaced-apart projecting parts (see annotated figure above) define a respective second slot (Birdsong 44, see Birdsong figure 5) of the second slots therebetween.
Regarding claim 5, Liu and Birdsong as applied to claim 4 teaches the adjacent ribs define a respective first slot (Birdsong 42, see Birdsong figure 5) wherein the first length of the first slot (Birdsong 42) is longer than the second length of the second slot (Birdsong 44).
Regarding claim 6, Liu and Birdsong as applied to claim 3 teach a first width of the first slot (Birdsong 42) and a second width of a second slot (Birdsong 44) are substantially the same (see Birdsong figure 5).
Regarding claim 9, Liu and Birdsong as applied to claim 2 teach the ribs are curved (see Birdsong figure 5).
Regarding claim 10, Liu and Birdsong as applied to claim 9 teach a fan (Liu 22) that is in superposition with the vent (see Liu figure 3). Liu and Birdsong are silent regarding the rotation direction of the fan. However, the fan is merely recited as intended use for the vent cover and the vent cover taught by Liu and Birdsong is capable of use with any fan that produces airflow through the vent.
Regarding claim 11, Liu and Birdsong as applied to claim 9 teach a fan (Liu 22) that is in superposition with the vent (see Liu figure 3). Liu and Birdsong are silent regarding the rotation direction of the fan. However, the fan is merely recited as intended use for the vent cover and the vent cover taught by Liu and Birdsong is capable of use with any fan that produces airflow through the vent.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2016/0098068 A1) and Birdsong et al. (US 5,938,525) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2011/0019358 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Liu and Birdsong as applied to claim 6 are silent regarding the width of the slots.
However, Liao teaches an all-in-one computer comprising a vent cover (Liao 35) comprising a plurality of slots (Liao 350) with a size between 1 millimeter and 2 millimeters (Liao [0019]) and teaches these small ventilation openings can prevent liquid from entering to provide splash resistance (Liao [0015]).
Further, a court has held that obviousness exists when claimed amounts do not overlap but are merely close and would not have produced unexpected results. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Liu and Birdsong’s vent cover to utilize Liao’s teachings of slots of 1 millimeter to 2 millimeter width producing splash resistance to select a similar slot width of approximately 0.95 millimeters to provided splash resistance to protect electronics from water damage.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2016/0098068 A1) in view of Mueller (DE 10 2005 011 698 1A).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses an information handling system ( see Liu figure 1) including a vent cover (Liu 101) including a body (see Liu figure 1).
Liu is silent regarding the vent cover comprising slots.
However, in the related field of air diffuser’s Birdsong teaches an air diffuser comprising a vent cover (Birdsong 30) comprising a body (see Mueller figure 1) having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface ; and a plurality of slots (Mueller 2) positioned within the body extending between the first and second surfaces, the plurality of slots including : first slots (see annotated figure) having a first length and extending between a first diameter and a second diameter of a first annulus (see annotated figure); and second slots (see annotated figure) that extend between the second diameter and the third diameter of the second annulus (see annotated figure), the first annulus including the second annulus (see annotated figure). Mueller teaches the slot arrangement includes a sloped surface (Mueller 4) to produce a swirling airflow to increase the distance of the airflow (Mueller [0017]).
PNG
media_image4.png
376
663
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Mueller figure 1 (annotated)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Liu’s vent cover to incorporate Mueller’s slot arrangement to produce a predictable result of producing a swirling airflow to increase the distance airflow from the vent travels to provide better ventilation for an information handling system.
Regarding claim 2, Liu and Mueller as applied to claim 1 further teach the vent cover body between the slots define ribs (see annotated figure) extending between the first and second diameter.
PNG
media_image5.png
376
647
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Mueller figure 2 (annotated)
Regarding claim 8, Liu and Mueller as applied to claim 2 further teach the ribs are substantially straight (see Mueller figure 2).
Claim(s) 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2016/0098068 A1) in view of Birdsong et al. (US 5,938,525) and Foster (US 2016/0328343 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Liu discloses an information handling system (see Liu figure 1) comprising:
a processor (Liu 13);
memory media in the form of a hard disk (Liu 14);
a vent cover (Liu 101)
Liu is silent regarding the hard disk storing instructions executable by the processor to perform operations and is further silent regarding the vent cover comprising slots.
However, Foster teaches an information handling system (Foster 110) comprising a processor (Foster 310) for executing instructions and memory (Foster 301) containing instructions in the form of an operating system (Foster 303) and user applications (Foster 302).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Liu’s information handling system to incorporate Foster’s teachings of memory including processor executable instructions in the form of an operating system and user applications to produce a predictable result of allowing a user to interact with the information handling system and run applications.
However, in the related field of air diffuser’s Birdsong teaches an air diffuser comprising a vent cover (Birdsong 30) comprising a body (see Birdsong figure 5) having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface (see Birdsong figure 1); and a plurality of slots (Birdsong 42, 44, and 46) positioned within the body extending between the first and second surfaces, the plurality of slots including : first slots (Birdsong 42) having a first length and extending between a first diameter and a second diameter of a first annulus (see annotated figure); and second slots (Birdsong 44) that extend between the second diameter and the third diameter of the second annulus (see annotated figure), the first annulus including the second annulus (see annotated figure). Birdsong teaches the curved slots produce a swirling airflow to minimize turbulence (Birdsong column 5 lines 17-21).
PNG
media_image1.png
490
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Birdsong figure 5 (annotated)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Liu’s vent cover to incorporate Birdsong’s teachings of curved slots arranged in an annular pattern to produce a predictable result of minimizing turbulence.
Regarding claim 14, Liu, Foster, and Birdsong as applied to claim 13 further teach the vent cover body between the slots define ribs (see annotated figure) extending between the first and second diameter.
PNG
media_image2.png
490
727
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Birdsong figure 5 (annotated)
Regarding claim 15, Liu, Foster and Birdsong as applied to claim 14 teach the ribs include a first contiguous portion (see annotated figure) extending between the first and third diameter of a third annulus; and a second portion (see annotated figure) extending between the second diameter and the third diameter of the second annulus, the second portion including at least two spaced-apart projecting parts (see annotated figure)
PNG
media_image3.png
490
846
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Birdsong figure 5 (annotated)
Regarding claim 16, Liu, Foster and Birdsong as applied to claim 15 teach the two spaced-apart projecting parts (see annotated figure above) define a respective second slot (Birdsong 44, see Birdsong figure 5) of the second slots therebetween.
Regarding claim 17, Liu, Foster and Birdsong as applied to claim 16 teaches the adjacent ribs define a respective first slot (Birdsong 42, see Birdsong figure 5) wherein the first length of the first slot (Birdsong 42) is longer than the second length of the second slot (Birdsong 44).
Regarding claim 18, Liu, Foster, and Birdsong as applied to claim 17 teach a first width of the first slot (Birdsong 42) and a second width of a second slot (Birdsong 44) are substantially the same (see Birdsong figure 5).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2016/0098068 A1), Birdsong et al. (US 5,938,525), and Foster (US 2016/0328343 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2011/0019358 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Liu, Foster, and Birdsong as applied to claim 18 are silent regarding the width of the slots.
However, Liao teaches an all-in-one computer comprising a vent cover (Liao 35) comprising a plurality of slots (Liao 350) with a size between 1 millimeter and 2 millimeters (Liao [0019]) and teaches these small ventilation openings can prevent liquid from entering to provide splash resistance (Liao [0015]).
Further, a court has held that obviousness exists when claimed amounts do not overlap but are merely close and would not have produced unexpected results. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Liu, Foster and Birdsong’s vent cover to utilize Liao’s teachings of slots of 1 millimeter to 2 millimeter width producing splash resistance to select a similar slot width of approximately 0.95 millimeters to provided splash resistance to protect electronics from water damage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Current prior art of record fails to teach the recited relationship between the area of the first slots in the third annulus to the area of the first and second slots in the second annulus as recited in claim 12 and it's dependent claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R BRAWNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm EST.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/CHARLES R BRAWNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762