DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the features of claims 5, as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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
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 3 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.
The term “opening rate” is not understood. The attempted definition found in Para. [0035] (as published) is unintelligible. The amendment to the claim does not cure this issue.
In particular the definition in the specification claims that the ratio is between the “total area of the drawer outlet” and “the area of the opening area” which is not the area of the surface on which it is formed. It is not clear what the difference between the two areas being compared to each other is. Nothing in the drawings appears to clarify this issue.
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.
Claim 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Andersson (US 5,398,159) in view of Tachibana (US 7,182,208).
Regarding claim 1, Andersson teaches a cabinet (stack of 31) with front, rear, and side walls (e.g. Figs. 1 and 2a-2c), at least one of front and rear walls comprise at least one cabinet air inlet at the bottom and outlet at the top (bottom and top openings of 43; see in particular outlet formed by 43a in Fig. 2b); a plurality of drawer assemblies (34) each adapted to receive a heat generating component (Col. 4:60) and sequentially arranged in a predetermined position of the cabinet in a vertical direction (see Fig. 2b), spaced apart from at least one sidewall of the pair of sidewalls (sidewalls that form 43) by a predetermined distance to form a cabinet heat dissipation channel (101); a drawer heat dissipation channel (from 73) communicates with the cabinet heat dissipation channel formed between every two adjacent drawer assemblies (Fig. 2b); each drawer assembly has a drawer air inlet (at 73) and outlet (top surface of 34) and the outlets communicate with the corresponding drawer heat dissipation channel (see Fig. 2b).
Andersson teaches that the drawer assemblies are spaced apart from one sidewall forming a single heat dissipation channel.
Tachibana teaches that it is old and well-known to form electronic devices mounted in cabinets in a vertical direction (3a-d; Fig. 1) spaced apart from a pair of sidewalls (8a, 8b; Fig. 1) to form two cabinet heat dissipation channels (4a, 4b; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Andersson with the two cabinet heat dissipation channels, as taught by Tachibana, in order to increase the evenness of airflow across the device or to allow for redundancy in case of blockage.
Andersson further teaches that: the drawer air outlet is arranged in a top wall of each drawer assembly (see Fig. 2b), per claim 2; the drawer air inlet is arranged in a lower portion of a front wall of each drawer assembly (see 73), per claim 4; the drawer air outlet of the drawer adjacent to the cabinet air outlet communicates with the cabinet air outlet direction (uppermost 34; Fig. 2b), per claim 5.
Per claim 3, the drawer outlet area is equal to the partial area in which is it formed making the ratio 100% which is greater than 30%.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson in view of Tachibana and Coglitore (US 7,508,663).
Andersson does not specify seals between adjacent drawer assemblies.
Coglitore teaches it is old and well-known to provide seals (250) between adjacent drawer assemblies (102-x; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Andersson with seals, as taught by Coglitore, in order to prevent air leakage and losses through undesired or non-useful locations in the device.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson in view of Tachibana and WO 2014/083078 (‘078).
Regarding claim 7, Andersson does not illustrate the voltage bias bus or its location.
‘078 illustrates that a voltage bias bus (11-13) is commonly arranged in the stacking direction of drawers (6-8) in a cabinet (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the voltage bias bus necessary to supply power, communications, etc. to the drawers between the drawers and a rear wall in the vertical direction, per ‘078, in order to enable the device of Andersson to function as intended.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson in view of Tachibana, ‘078 and JP 2013183146 (‘146).
Andersson, as modified, does not specify the metal heat dissipation plates with slots.
‘146 teaches the use of metal heat dissipation plates with slots (heat sinks 11 and 16) related to each drawer in a cabinet.
It would have been obvious to provide the drawers of Andersson with such heat sinks, as taught by ‘146 in order to increase the thermal dissipation from the interior of the drawer. Furthermore, in the combined teachings of Andersson and ‘078 at least the heat sinks of the upper drawers will be vertically above the bus portions which communicate with the lower drawers and adjacent the cabinet air outlet.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson in view of Tachibana, ‘078 and Coglitore.
Andersson, as modified, does not specify a fan associated specifically with the cabinet air inlet or outlet.
Coglitore teaches it is old and well-known to mount a fan (126) at the cabinet air outlet (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Andersson with a cabinet air outlet fan detachably (anything is removable) mounted, as taught by Coglitore, in order to increase the airflow and efficiency along the cabinet air flow path.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to the 103 rejection statement, arguments 1-3 are addressed by the new grounds of rejection above. The fourth argument, that the channel 73 is on the front of the cabinet and not the drawer assembly, the examiner’s reading was that the element number 73 also applied to the clearly illustrated opening on the drawer assembly immediately to the right of the opening int eh cabinet assembly. Regardless of the intent of the number in the prior art, that is the location in the prior art where this feature can be found for reference.
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 Devon Lane whose telephone number is (571)270-1858. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9-4.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571.270.5054. 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.
/DEVON LANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763