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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 15-16 in the reply filed February 10th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-14 and 17-20 have been cancelled. Claims 15-16 and 21-35 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 31 is 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.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “wherein the first cooling fan comprises a fan rotating on a plane parallel to a first direction and a second direction crossing the first direction, and the second cooling fan comprises a fan rotating on a plane parallel to the second direction and a third direction crossing the second direction.” It is unclear whether applicant intends for the first cooling fan to be rotating parallel to both the first and second direction or if the second direction is introduced to then describe the orientation of the second cooling fan. Similarly, it is unclear whether applicant intends for the second cooling fan to be rotating parallel to both the second and third direction. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has looked to the specification to provide more clarity; however, in [0045]-[0046] on the instant specification, the orientations of the two fans appear to be described in a way that is not consistent with the language of the claim. Specifically, the instant specification describes the first cooling fan as rotating on a plane “parallel to the first direction D1 and the third direction D3” and the second cooling fan as rotating on a plane “parallel to the second direction D2 and the third direction D3.” As the language of the claim and the description in the instant specification are not consistent with one another, the Examiner was unable to examine the claim at this time. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. MPEP 2173.06 (II)
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 15, 22-25, 27-30, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean Patent Publication No. KR 102147606 B1 to Park et al. (hereinafter referred to as Park), and further in view of German Patent Publication No. DE 202021105730 U1 to Chen (hereinafter referred to as Chen) and Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 201438565 U to Liao (hereinafter referred to as Liao).
Regarding claim 15, Park teaches a computer system comprising: a computer device (Fig. 1, personal computer 5); wherein the computer device comprises: a case comprising a first opening (Fig. 9, first opening depicted by arrows which indicate the passage of airflow); an intake filter box exposed through the first opening of the case (Fig. 9, air cleaning unit 100); a main board within the case (¶0032 – 0033 “In addition, the main body includes a case having an accommodation space formed therein, and hardware mounted in the accommodation space … the hardware of the personal computer may be various hardware such as a CPU, a main board, a memory, a graphic card, a storage device, and a power supply”); and a power supply device within the case (¶0032 – 0033), wherein the intake filter box comprises: a first air inflow surface exposed through the first opening (see annotated figure below); a first air discharge surface opposite to the first air inflow surface (see annotated figure below);
PNG
media_image1.png
426
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and an absorbent between the first air inflow surface and the first air discharge surface (Fig. 3, filters 130 and 140), wherein each of the first air inflow surface and the first air discharge surface comprises holes (Fig. 4, the arrows depicting airflow indicate the passage of airflow through the first inflow surface and the first discharge surface, therefore reading on “comprises holes”). Park is silent on the external power supply of the computer and does not teach wherein the absorbents are moisture absorbents.
However, Chen teaches a moisture-proof cabinet for a computer (Pg. 1 “The invention relates to the field of computer cases, in particular to a moisture-resistant computer case.”) to improve the service life of the computer (Pg. 2 “The computer case is therefore very susceptible to the influence of moisture, which greatly reduces the service life of the computer case). Chen further teaches wherein a moisture-free environment can be achieved with the use of a desiccant inside an air inlet of the computer case (Fig. 2, silicone desiccant 7 placed below ventilation hole 3).
Park and Chen are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filtration systems for computer housing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer system as taught by Park to include a desiccant as taught by Chen to reduce the moisture content in the interior of the case and increase the service life of the computer. Such a modification may be achieved through the replacement of either the first filter 130 or the second filter 140 as taught by Park with a desiccant material.
As to the socket box, Liao teaches a socket box (Fig. 2, socket panel 1), a cable configured to electrically connect a computer device to the socket box (Pg. 5 “The connecting wire 3 can be various cables or flat cables, etc.” ; Fig. 2, connecting wire 3), wherein the socket box comprises a power switch (Fig. 2, switch 9) and a monitor port (Fig. 2, sub-socket unit 8 ; Pg. 6 “The socket unit 6 and the sub-socket unit 8 can be various types of jacks or electrical connectors such as USB connectors, IEEEI1394 connectors, HDMI connectors”). Liao additionally teaches that the socket box allows for various configurations depending upon the user’s specific needs (Pg. 1 “The technical problem to be solved by the utility model is to provide a detachable socket panel structure, which can be disassembled and transformed according to needs, has good versatility, is convenient for application, and can effectively reduce the manufacturing cost.”).
Park, Chen, and Liao are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electronic devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer system as taught by Park and Chen to further include the socket box as taught by Liao. The inclusion of the socket box as taught by Liao would provide various types of connection ports for the computer system from a single unit and would allow for adaptation of said ports as needed.
Regarding claim 22, Park, Chen, and Liao teach the computer system as applied to claim 15 above. Park further teaches wherein the intake filter box comprises: a first terminal connection opening; a first terminal connection tube connected to the first terminal connection opening; and a second terminal connection opening connected to the first terminal connection tube (see annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image2.png
413
393
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the first terminal connection tube has a shape of an empty pipe (Fig. 2, air cleaning unit 100 is circular and shape and therefore the opening between filters 130 and 140 would be in the shape of an “empty pipe”).
Regarding claim 23, Park, Chen, and Liao teach the computer system as applied to claim 22 above. Park, Chen, and Liao do not teach wherein each of the first and second terminal connection openings has a size greater than that of the holes. However, where the only difference between the prior art and the clams was a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 24, Park, Chen, and Liao teach the computer system as applied to claim 22 above. Park further teaches wherein a terminal of the main board is exposed through the first terminal connection opening, the second terminal connection opening, and the first terminal connection tube (Fig. 4, the airflow depicted by arrows shows that a terminal of the main board is exposed through the first terminal connection opening, the second terminal connection opening, and the first terminal connection tube, which are all held in air cleaning unit 100).
Regarding claim 25, Park, Chen, and Liao teach the computer system as applied to claim 15 above. Chen further teaches a heating wire (Fig. 2, heating wire 8) that is configured to heat the desiccant to evaporate water, allowing for reuse of the material (Pg. 2 “When the ventilation holes are closed, the heating wire can heat the desiccant box to evaporate the water in the desiccant box so that the desiccant in the desiccant box can be reused.”). With the inclusion of the desiccant as taught by Chen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to additionally include the heating wire to allow for regeneration of said desiccant. As to the placement of the heating wire, a configuration in which the heating wire surrounds both the first air inflow surface and the first air discharge surface would entirely encase the desiccant and provide more efficient heating and regeneration.
Regarding claim 27, Park, Chen, and Liao teach the computer system as applied to claim 15 above. Park further teaches wherein the case further comprises a second opening (Fig. 4, second indicated by arrows which depict airflow through and out of the computer case), and the computer device further comprises an exhaust filter box exposed through the second opening (Fig. 4, exhaust box holding discharge fan 50), wherein the exhaust filter box comprises: a second air discharge surface exposed through the second opening; a second air inflow surface opposite to the second air discharge surface (see annotated image below).
PNG
media_image3.png
421
507
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Park does not teach a second moisture absorbent between the second air inflow surface and the second air discharge surface. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the computer system as taught by Park, Chen, and Liao could be modified such that the air cleaning unit 100 is duplicated and placed within the exhaust filter box. With such a modification, a second moisture absorbent would prevent any moisture from entering the case even with backflow. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 28, Park, Chen, and Liao teach the computer system as applied to claim 27 above. Park, Chen, and Liao do not teach a third terminal connection opening; a second terminal connection tube connected to the third terminal connection opening; and a fourth terminal connection opening connected to the second terminal connection tube, wherein the second terminal connection tube has a shape of an empty pipe. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the computer system as taught by Park, Chen, and Liao to include additional terminal connection openings and connection tubes would further prevent any moisture from entering the computer case. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 29, Park, Chen, and Liao teach the computer system as applied to claim 28 above. Park further teaches an internal power supply device located within the interior of the computer case (¶0032 “In addition, the main body includes a case having an accommodation space formed therein, and hardware mounted in the accommodation space” ; ¶0033 “Here, the hardware of the personal computer may be various hardware such as … a power supply”). Although Park does not teach the additional terminal connection openings and connection tubes, as explained above, modifying the computer system to include duplicates would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. With such a duplication, the third terminal connection opening, the fourth terminal connection opening, and the second terminal connection tube would be in fluid communication with one another and with the interior of the computer case where the power supply is held, reading on the limitation of “wherein a terminal of the power supply device is exposed” through the additional terminal connection openings and connection tubes.
Regarding claim 30, Park, Chen, and Liao teach the computer system as applied to claim 15 above. Park further teaches wherein the case further comprises a second opening (Fig. 4, second indicated by arrows which depict airflow through and out of the computer case), and the computer device further comprises: an exhaust box exposed through the second opening (Fig. 4, exhaust box holding discharge fan 50); and an air control device (Fig. 9, air cleaning unit 400), wherein the air control device comprises: an air inlet (Fig. 9, although not shown in Fig. 9, the main board is below the air inlet); an air outlet adjacent to the exhaust filter box (Fig. 9, air outlet of air cleaning unit 400 is adjacent to exhaust box); and an inner space through which the air inlet and the air outlet are connected to each other (Fig. 9, air cleaning unit 400 allows the passage of airflow as depicted by arrows). Park does not teach wherein the exhaust box is an exhaust filter box and wherein the air inlet is adjacent to the main board. However, as to the exhaust filter box, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the computer system as taught by Park, Chen, and Liao could be modified such that the air cleaning unit 100 is duplicated and placed within the exhaust filter box. With such a modification, a second moisture absorbent would prevent any moisture from entering the case even with backflow. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). Regarding the location of the air inlet with respect to the main board, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the rearrangement of the main board to be directly adjacent to the air inlet would not modify the operation of the device. The rearrangement of parts does not patentably distinguish the invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 34, Park, Chen, and Liao teach the computer system as applied to claim 15 above. Liao further teaches wherein the socket box further comprises a USB port (Fig. 2, sub-socket unit 8 ; Pg. 6 “The socket unit 6 and the sub-socket unit 8 can be various types of jacks or electrical connectors such as USB connectors, IEEEI1394 connectors, HDMI connectors.”).
Regarding claim 35, Park, Chen, and Liao teach the computer system as applied to claim 34 above. Liao further teaches wherein the socket box is configured to provide powering the computer device on or off (Fig. 2, switch 9), connecting a monitor (Fig. 2, sub-socket unit 8 ; Pg. 6 “The socket unit 6 and the sub-socket unit 8 can be various types of jacks or electrical connectors such as USB connectors, IEEEI1394 connectors, HDMI connectors.”), and connecting a USB device (Pg. 6 “The socket unit 6 and the sub-socket unit 8 can be various types of jacks or electrical connectors such as USB connectors, IEEEI1394 connectors, HDMI connectors.”).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Chen, and Liao, and further in view of Wen, F. et al. All-optical 3R regeneration using a single fiber-optical parametric oscillator with idler feedback control circuit, Optics Communications, Vol. 315 (March 2014), pp. 87-90 (hereinafter referred to as Wen).
Regarding claim 16, Park, Chen, and Liao teach the computer system as applied to claim 15 above. Park, Chen, and Liao do not teach wherein the cable comprises an automatic signal regeneration function.
However, Wen teaches that the use of all-optical 3R regenerators can compensate for degraded signals (Introduction “All-optical 3R regenerators can directly handle degraded signals resulting from fiber loss, dispersion, nonlinearity and the amplified spontaneous emission noise”).
Park, Chen, Liao, and Wen are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electronics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer system as taught by Park, Chen, and Liao to further include an all-optical 3R regenerator as taught by Wen to regenerate any degraded signals, resulting in continual powering of the computer system in the event of a degraded signal.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Chen, and Liao, and further in view of Gawryla, M.D. et al. Novel Absorbent Materials Created via Ice Templating, Macromolecular Materials and Engineering, Vol. 294 (Sept. 2009), pp. 547-624 (hereinafter referred to as Gawryla).
Regarding claim 21, Park, Chen, and Liao teach the computer system as applied to claim 15 above. Park, Chen, and Liao do not teach wherein each of the first moisture absorbents comprises ceramic.
However, Gawryla teaches that typical absorbent polymeric structures lose their structural integrity upon the absorption of large amounts of liquid (Pg. 570 “Due to this dissolution, many absorbent polymeric structures become very soft upon the absorption of large amounts of liquid.”). Gawryla further teaches that the incorporation of such polymeric structures into ceramics creates an absorbent that has rapid absorption yet maintains its structural rigidity when saturated (Abstract “The addition of fibers and firing of low-density clay aerogels into ceramics provide multiple routes to creating structures exhibiting rapid absorption and a rigid, stable structure when saturated.”).
Park, Chen, and Liao are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electronic devices. Gawryla is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to a particular problem with which the inventor was concerned (absorption of moisture). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the computer system as taught by Park, Chen, and Liao could be modified to include the ceramic absorbent as taught by Gawryla to ensure structural integrity even once the material has become saturated with water. Furthermore, the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (in this case, the absorption of water) supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claims 26 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Chen, and Liao, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2019/0160418 A1 to Matsumoto et al. (hereinafter referred to as Matsumoto).
Regarding claim 26, Park, Chen, and Liao teach the computer system as applied to claim 25 above. Park further teaches wherein the computer device further comprises a temperature controller (Fig. 9, temperature control unit 500). Park, Chen, and Liao do not teach a humidity controller or wherein the temperature and humidity controllers are electrically connected to the heating wire.
However, Matsumoto teaches an air purification controller that is capable of switching between adsorption and regeneration modes depending upon measured levels of contaminants and humidity (¶0010 “According to the above arrangement, because the controller selectively executes the purification mode, the first regeneration mode, and the second regeneration mode based on the outputs of the in-cabin CO2 concentration sensor and the in-cabin absolute humidity estimator, it is possible to prevent the sorbent from becoming saturated or being left saturated with moisture and/or carbon dioxide.”). The humidity controller is attached to a heater (¶0008 “and wherein the controller (35) is configured to control the three-way valve, the blower, and the heater based on outputs of the in-cabin CO2 concentration sensor and the in-cabin absolute humidity estimator”).
Park, Chen, and Liao are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electronic devices. Matsumoto is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of moisture control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer system as taught by Park, Chen, and Liao to further include the humidification controller as taught by Matsumoto to automatically prevent the sorbent from becoming fully saturated with moisture based upon real-time measurements.
Regarding claim 32, Park, Chen, and Liao teach the computer system as applied to claim 15 above. Park further teaches wherein the computer device further comprises a first temperature sensor (Fig. 9, temperature control unit 500). Park is silent on the power source of the temperature sensor. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that connecting the temperature control unit to the main board would allow for proper power supply without the need for external connections. Park, Chen, and Liao do not teach a first humidity sensor.
However, Matsumoto teaches an air purification controller that is capable of switching between adsorption and regeneration modes depending upon measured levels of contaminants and humidity (¶0010 “According to the above arrangement, because the controller selectively executes the purification mode, the first regeneration mode, and the second regeneration mode based on the outputs of the in-cabin CO2 concentration sensor and the in-cabin absolute humidity estimator, it is possible to prevent the sorbent from becoming saturated or being left saturated with moisture and/or carbon dioxide.”).
Park, Chen, and Liao are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electronic devices. Matsumoto is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of moisture control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer system as taught by Park, Chen, and Liao to further include the humidification controller as taught by Matsumoto to automatically prevent the sorbent from becoming fully saturated with moisture based upon real-time measurements.
Regarding claim 33, Park, Liao, Chen, and Matsumoto teach the computer system as applied to claim 32 above. Park, Liao, Chen, and Matsumoto do not teach wherein the computer device further comprises a second humidity sensor within the intake filter box. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art that a second humidity sensor within the intake filter box may provide more accurate readings as to the saturation of the absorbent material. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights