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 § 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 1-2, 5, 12-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Andersson (US 5,398,159) in view of Tachibana (US 7,182,208) and WO 2014/083078 (‘078).
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 front bottom (73) and outlet at the top (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 arranged in a lower portion of a front wall of each drawer assembly (where it interfaces with the airflow accessed from 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 teaches that the outlet is at the top of the cabinet, but does not specify that the outlet is at the front of the cabinet. It is noted that Tachibana does allow for the air outlet to be in the Y direction (see Col. 6:30).
‘078 teaches that it is old and well-known to arrange cabinet air inlets on the same front face of the cabinet at the bottom and top of the cabinet (see 16, 17 in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the device of Andersson, as modified, to locate the cabinet air outlet at the front face of the device, as taught by ‘078, in order to provide a device which requires only a single face clear of obstruction for successful operation. It is noted that such rearranging of ducting is merely a question of plumbing well-within the ordinary skill.
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 outlet of the drawer adjacent to the cabinet air outlet communicates with the cabinet air outlet directly (via the intervening topmost portion of the cabin air outlet channel, just as the disclosed invention directs said air through the portion of the cabin air outlet channel which contains the devices 140; see uppermost 34 in Fig. 2b of Andersson), per claim 5.
Andersson further teaches that: the drawer heat dissipation channel is formed in a space between a top wall of a lower one of the two adjacent drawer assemblies and a bottom wall of the upper (see space 101; Fig. 2b), per claim 12; the drawer air outlet (via 101) discharges hot air into the drawer heat dissipation channel (43; see Fig. 2b), per claim 13; a position of the front wall of the cabinet corresponding to the plurality of drawer assemblies (71) is an open structure (spacing between 71 and 121) for independent heat dissipation of each drawer assembly, per claim 19.
Regarding claim 14, Andersson teaches that hot air discharged from the drawer air outlet flows through the drawer heat dissipation channel in a transverse direction (see flow arrows in 101) toward the heat dissipation channel (43). It is noted that, per the combination above, while Andersson’s transverse flow is front-to-back, per the modification with Tachibana above, the resulting flow in the combined teachings is side-to-side.
Regarding claim 15, Andersson teaches that the cabinet heat dissipation channel (43) collects hot air from the drawer heat dissipation channels (101) formed between adjacent drawer assemblies (fig. 2b). Per the combination above incorporating the teachings of Tachibana, the cabinet heat dissipation channel is two channels located at the sides.
Regarding claim 17, Tachibana further teaches that the cabinet heat dissipation channels extend in the vertical direction from a bottom to a top of the cabinet (see Fig. 2). Andersson likewise teaches cabinet heat dissipation channel extension vertically from a bottom to a top of the cabinet (Fig. 2b).
Regarding claim 18, Andersson does not discuss a relationship between the width of the cabinet air inlets and the drawers.
Tachibana illustrates cabinet air openings (8c; Fig. 4) which are wider than the width allotted for mounting the drawers, and thus the drawers themselves (Fig. 1; 3a-3d).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to form the cabinet air openings as wide as possible, including wider than the drawers themselves, as taught by Tachibana, in order to minimize the resistance to airflow.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson in view of Tachibana, ‘078, and TW 202209956 (‘956).
Regarding claim 3, Andersson, as modified, does not specify the ratio between the opening area of the vent holes and the area of the surface in which they are formed.
‘956 teaches that such a ratio is a balanced results effective variable optimizing the efficiency of airflow against the ease of ingress of unwanted pollutants and debris (“The greater the opening ratio of the openings, the greater the flow of cooling airflow. However, the larger the aperture ratio of the openings, the easier it is for foreign objects to enter and cause damage to the internal electronic components”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to optimize this ratio in the device of Andersson, as taught by ‘956, in order to maximize the efficiency of the device for the anticipated debris environment and equipment delicacy.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson in view of Tachibana, ‘078, 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.
Regarding claim 16, as Andersson clearly illustrates that the intended flow direction of the air in the drawer heat dissipation channel (101) to be toward the cabinet dissipation channel (43; Fig. 2b), it would have further been obvious to locate the seals of Coglitore such that air does not leak between adjacent drawer assemblies and only flows in its intended direction.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson in view of Tachibana, ‘078, 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson in view of Tachibana, ‘078, Coglitore, and Shariff (US 8,115,145).
Regarding claim 11, Andersson, as modified, does not discuss the control of fan speed.
Shariff teaches that it is old and well-known to adjust fan speed in response to temperature of the cooled equipment exceeding a threshold temperature (Col. 2:19-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to provide a control system to the fan of Andersson, as modified, such as that of Shariff, in order to optimize the energy use of the fan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the drawing objection, the flow arrow that the applicant points to is not in “direct communication” with the cabinet air outlet, it is in direct communication with the space housing elements 140 which is in turn in direct communication with the cabinet air outlet. Correction is still required.
The rejection under 112 has been removed due to the currently claim amendments.
The amendments to claim 1 are addressed above.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights