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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumoto et. al (US 2007/0064387 A1).
With respect to claim 1 Matsumoto discloses a module socket assembly, comprising: a module socket comprising a circuit board [reference character 27 in Fig. 12] and a front panel [see annotated Fig. below] disposed on a side of the circuit board, wherein a module casing [reference character 11 in Fig. 12] is disposed on the circuit board; an end of the front panel corresponding to the module casing has a module casing opening [the opening in the front panel through which 11 extends]; a front end of the module casing passes through the module casing opening [see Fig. 12] and has a module jack [see annotated Fig. below, which is an RJ-45/SFP jack, see paragraph 0055]; a portion of the front panel adjacent to the module casing opening has an air duct opening [the opening in the front panel through which duct 5 extends]; and an air duct [reference character 5] having an air duct body adapted to cover the module casing; the air duct body passes through the air duct opening and has a top board [see annotated Fig. below]; two side boards are formed by extending downward respectively from two opposite edges of the top board [see annotated Fig. below]; an air passage [see annotated Fig. below] that is extending is formed between the top board and the two side boards.
PNG
media_image1.png
497
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2 Matsumoto discloses that the air duct opening communicates with the module casing opening [via the internal space of the case]; the air duct body movably passes through the air duct opening [see Fig. 12].
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meadowcroft et. al (US 7,317,617 B2).
With respect to claim 1 Meadowcroft discloses a module socket assembly, comprising: a module socket comprising a circuit board [reference character 81] and a front panel [see annotated Fig. below] disposed on a side of the circuit board, wherein a module casing [reference character 82] is disposed on the circuit board; an end of the front panel corresponding to the module casing has a module casing opening [the opening in the front panel through which 82 extends]; a front end of the module casing passes through the module casing opening [see Fig. 6] and has a module jack [see Fig. 6]; a portion of the front panel adjacent to the module casing opening has an air duct opening [see annotated Fig. below]; and an air duct [reference character 84] having an air duct body adapted to cover the module casing; the air duct body passes through the air duct opening and has a top board [see annotated Fig. below]; two side boards are formed by extending downward respectively from two opposite edges of the top board [see annotated Fig. below]; an air passage [see Fig. 2] that is extending is formed between the top board and the two side boards.
PNG
media_image2.png
420
715
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2 Meadowcroft discloses that the air duct opening communicates with the module casing opening [see Fig. 6]; the air duct body movably passes through the air duct opening [see Fig. 6].
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et. al (US 2007/0064387 A1) in view of Nguyen (US 2013/0077254 A1).
With respect to claim 3 Matsumoto discloses the duct opening has a top edge [see Fig. 12].
Matsumoto that the air duct portion includes a first raised portion and a second raised portion are respectively disposed on the air duct body, wherein the first raised portion is adapted to stop at a side of the top edge of the air duct opening, and the second raised portion is adapted to stop at another side of the top edge of the air duct opening.
Nguyen discloses a module [reference character 100] that is insertable into a port in a host device [paragraph 0032]. The module includes a first raised portion [reference character 142b in Fig. 1B] and a second raised portion [reference character 181 in Fig. 1B] are respectively disposed on the air duct body, wherein the first raised portion is adapted to stop at a side of the top edge of the air duct opening, and the second raised portion is adapted to stop at another side of the top edge of the air duct opening [see paragraph 0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the duct module taught by Matsumoto by including the first and second raised portions, as taught by Nguyen, in order to ensure that the duct/module is secured/sealed to the port.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meadowcroft et. al (US 7,317,617 B2) in view of Nguyen (US 2013/0077254 A1).
With respect to claim 3 Meadowcroft discloses the duct opening has a top edge [see Fig. 12].
Meadowcroft that the air duct portion includes a first raised portion and a second raised portion are respectively disposed on the air duct body, wherein the first raised portion is adapted to stop at a side of the top edge of the air duct opening, and the second raised portion is adapted to stop at another side of the top edge of the air duct opening.
Nguyen discloses a module [reference character 100] that is insertable into a port in a host device [paragraph 0032]. The module includes a first raised portion [reference character 142b in Fig. 1B] and a second raised portion [reference character 181 in Fig. 1B] are respectively disposed on the air duct body, wherein the first raised portion is adapted to stop at a side of the top edge of the air duct opening, and the second raised portion is adapted to stop at another side of the top edge of the air duct opening [see paragraph 0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the duct module taught by Meadowcroft by including the first and second raised portions, as taught by Nguyen, in order to ensure that the duct/module is secured/sealed to the port.
Claim(s) 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meadowcroft et. al (US 7,317,617 B2) in view of Lin et. al (US 2022/0045478 A1).
With respect to claim 7 Meadowcroft does not disclose a top rail extending in a front-rear direction is disposed on a top of the module casing; the air duct body has a bottom slide portion slidingly disposed on the top rail.
Lin discloses a module [reference character 201-1] and a cover [reference character 201-2] where a top rail extending in a front-rear direction is disposed on a top of the module casing; the cover has a bottom slide portion slidingly disposed on the top rail [see interaction at reference character 206 in Fig. 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Meadowcroft by including a rail on the module casing and a corresponding bottom slide portion on the duct, as taught by Lin, in order to ensure proper alignment between the duct and the module.
PNG
media_image3.png
518
661
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 13 the combination of Meadowcroft and Lin discloses that two sliding grooves [see annotated Fig. below] of the top rail extending in the front-rear direction are respectively disposed on a top of a left-side surface and a top of a right-side surface of the module casing; two inner ribs [see annotated Fig. below] of the bottom slide portion extending in the front-rear direction are respectively disposed on a bottom edge of an inner surface of the two side boards; the two inner ribs slidably fit in the two sliding grooves in the front-rear direction, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Meadowcroft by including a rail on the module casing and a corresponding bottom slide portion on the duct, as taught by Lin, in order to ensure proper alignment between the duct and the module.
PNG
media_image4.png
485
680
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meadowcroft et. al (US 7,317,617 B2) in view of Nguyen (US 2013/0077254 A1), and further in view of Lin et. al (US 2022/0045478 A1).
With respect to claim 8 Meadowcroft does not disclose a top rail extending in a front-rear direction is disposed on a top of the module casing; the air duct body has a bottom slide portion slidingly disposed on the top rail.
Lin discloses a module [reference character 201-1] and a cover [reference character 201-2] where a top rail extending in a front-rear direction is disposed on a top of the module casing; the cover has a bottom slide portion slidingly disposed on the top rail [see interaction at reference character 206 in Fig. 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Meadowcroft and Nguyen by including a rail on the module casing and a corresponding bottom slide portion on the duct, as taught by Lin, in order to ensure proper alignment between the duct and the module.
PNG
media_image3.png
518
661
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 14 the combination of Meadowcroft and Lin discloses that two sliding grooves [see annotated Fig. below] of the top rail extending in the front-rear direction are respectively disposed on a top of a left-side surface and a top of a right-side surface of the module casing; two inner ribs [see annotated Fig. below] of the bottom slide portion extending in the front-rear direction are respectively disposed on a bottom edge of an inner surface of the two side boards; the two inner ribs slidably fit in the two sliding grooves in the front-rear direction, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Meadowcroft by including a rail on the module casing and a corresponding bottom slide portion on the duct, as taught by Lin, in order to ensure proper alignment between the duct and the module.
PNG
media_image4.png
485
680
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 9-12, and 15-19 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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, Steven B 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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights