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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/14/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the limitations "the first set of cavities" and “the second set of cavities” in lines 4 and 5, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jervonte et al. (WO 2013182733 A1) (of record, cited in IDS) in view of Murayama et al. (US 20120236499 A1), hereafter referred to as Jaerventoe and Murayama, respectively.
With regards to claim 1, Jaerventoe discloses:
A cross flow heat transfer apparatus (10) (Fig. 2) for a combined arrangement (See arrangement of parts in Fig. 2) comprising an electronic display (30) (Fig. 2) and an integrated circuit chamber (40, 60) (Fig. 2), the cross flow heat transfer apparatus (10) (Fig. 2) comprising: an external heatsink (42) (Fig. 2) configured to be arranged between (Between 30 and 60) (Fig. 2) the electronic display (30) (Fig. 2) and the integrated circuit chamber (40, 60) (Fig. 2), wherein the external heatsink (42) (Fig. 2), comprising a plurality of vertically-oriented fins (Vertical with respect to Fig. 2), is configured to mediate a cross flow heat transfer mechanism (Mediation of heat transfer via heat dissipation into channel 28c) (Fig. 2) between the electronic display (30) (Fig. 2) and the integrated circuit chamber (40, 60) (Fig. 2), wherein the cross flow heat transfer mechanism (i.e., the various unlabeled airflow arrows of Fig. 4) comprising: an internal flow (Unlabeled airflow arrows moving clockwise) (Fig. 4) driven by a set of internal fans (50) (Fig. 3) associated with an internal heatsink (29) (Fig. 2) coupled (Mechanically coupled via the frame, consider Fig. 2) with the integrated circuit chamber (40, 60) (Fig. 2), wherein the internal flow (Unlabeled airflow arrows moving clockwise) (Fig. 4) is directed transversally (i.e., right to left, at the bottom of the case, relative to Figs. 2 and 4) towards the electronic display (30) (Fig. 2) from the integrated circuit chamber (40, 60) (Fig. 2), and an external flow (Unlabeled airflow arrows moving downwards through 28c) (Fig. 4).
Jaerventoe does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the external flow is driven by the plurality of vertically-oriented fins of the external heatsink based on a temperature gradient.
However, Murayama discloses:
wherein the external flow (C) (Fig. 6a) is driven by the plurality of vertically-oriented channels (16) (Fig. 6a) of the external heatsink (14) (Fig. 6a) based on a temperature gradient (Airflow C is noted as being driven via convection) (Fig. 6a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the external flow of Jaerventoe to be driven by convection, as opposed to forced air methods. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce power consumption of the device (i.e., through elimination of power draw from fans), and to allow for quieter operation.
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With regards to claim 3, Jaerventoe and Murayama disclose all as applied to claim 1, and Jaerventoe additionally discloses:
wherein the internal flow (Unlabeled airflow arrows moving clockwise) (Fig. 4) and the external flow (Unlabeled airflow arrows moving downwards through 28c) (Fig. 4) are perpendicular (See Fig. 4; the left-right flow portion of the internal flow is perpendicular to the external flow, which is in the up-down direction).
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claim 4, Jaerventoe and Murayama disclose all as applied to claim 1, and Jaerventoe additionally discloses:
wherein the cross flow heat transfer apparatus (10) (Fig. 2) comprises an external shell protection (20) (Fig. 1) to isolate the internal flow (Unlabeled airflow arrows moving clockwise) (Fig. 4) of the apparatus from an external environment thereof (See Figs. 1, 2. Housing 20 separates the internals from the external environment).
See also KSR, supra.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaerventoe and Murayama, in further view of Saito (US 20210267090 A1), hereafter referred to as Saito.
With regards to claim 2, Jarventoe and Murayama disclose all as applied to claim 1, and Jarventoe additionally discloses:
wherein the external heatsink (42) (Fig. 2) is in direct contact (See Fig. 2) with a back plaque (Back surface of backlight 40) (Fig. 2) of the electronic display (Backlight 40 is part of the full display setup, which includes 30 and 40).
However, Jaerventoe and Murayama do not explicitly disclose:
a back metal plaque of the electronic display.
However, Saito discloses:
wherein the backlight (12) has a back metal plaque (11) (Fig. 1) of the electronic display (Backlight 12 is a portion of the display 2) (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the backlight of Jaerventoe to include the backplate as taught by Saito. Such a combination would fulfill the limitation of the external heatsink of Jaerventoe being in direct contact with the back metal plaque (backplate), as the backlight of Jaerventoe directly contacts the external heatsink, and the backplate of Saito is placed on the back of the backlight. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to better structurally support the backlight of Jaerventoe, and to improve heat dissipation.
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaerventoe and Murayama, in further view of Dunn et al. (US 20110013114 A1), hereafter referred to as Dunn.
With regards to claim 5, Jaerventoe and Murayama disclose all as applied to claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the integrated circuit chamber includes a heat generation element configured to inject the necessary amount of heat energy needed to keep the internal temperature of the integrated circuit chamber in viable ranges at extremely low temperatures, wherein the heat energy is directed, by convection, transversally towards the electronic display.
However, Dunn discloses:
wherein the control board (Not numbered, on which components 110 are mounted) (Fig. 1) includes a heat generation element (110) (Fig. 1) configured to inject the necessary amount of heat energy needed to keep the internal temperature of the integrated circuit chamber in viable ranges at extremely low temperatures (Paragraph [0015] states that components 110 may include heaters, to aid in use in cold-weather environments.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit 60 of Jaerventoe to include the heating components as taught by Dunn. One of ordinary skill would have known to place the heating component in the control unit 60 of Jaerventoe, as it holds the various non-major components for the display. Given such a combination, control unit 60 is the integrated circuit chamber, which would include the heater, and it is notable that convection would assist in directing the heat energy, at least in part, upwards and leftwards, when taken in view of Figs. 2 and 4 of Jaerventoe. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve cold weather performance, and reducing the potential for condensation and corrosion within the device.
Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device as recited in the subject matter of dependent claim 6, and at least in part, because claim 6 recites the limitations:
(Claim 6): “ … wherein the integrated circuit chamber having a first set of cavities, wherein the first set of cavities has an entry cone on the first end and an exit cone on the second end, and the electronic display arranged in a metal casing having a second set of cavities, wherein the second set of cavities have an entry cone on the first end and an exit cone on the second end, corresponding to the first set of cavities, for allowing the internal flow to pass therethrough.”
The aforementioned limitations, in combination with all remaining limitations of dependent claim 6, are believed to render the subject matter as allowable over the prior art references of record, taken either alone or in combination.
Jaerventoe (WO 2013182733 A1) (of record, cited in IDS) and Murayama (US 20120236499 A1) are believed to be the closest prior art references, and are discussed above.
However, Jaerventoe and Murayama fail to disclose, at least, the aforementioned allowable limitations of dependent claim 6.
The remaining prior art references teach various cooling systems, particularly those for cooling displays with airflow streams that are similar in form to the instant Application. However, none of the prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to teach and/or suggest the aforementioned allowable limitations of dependent claim 6.
Finally, the Office has not identified any double patenting issues. For all of the reasons outlined above, it is believed that the instant Application contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Moon et al. (US 20200241612 A1), teaching a heater within a cooled display system.
Vairani et al. (IT 201600069274 A1), teaching a multi-channel cooled display system of similar form to the instant application.
Wang et al. (WO 2019179076 A1), teaching a cooling system with an internal “bypass” channel of similar form to the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE OXENKNECHT whose telephone number is (703)756-1976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/K.O./Examiner, Art Unit 2835
/MANDEEP S BUTTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835