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 Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a top cover” and “said top cover”, which appears to correspond to the cover plate 110 in the specification. There is no “top cover” described in the specification, so Applicant should use the same term “cover plate” in the claims instead of “top cover”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3-5 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 3 recites “wherein said air guide device has a cover plate that is disposed such that said at least one semiconductor device and said at least one heat sink are disposed between said printed circuit board and said cover plate, said air duct inlet and said air duct outlet each being disposed between said cover plate and said printed circuit board”, which renders the claims indefinite, because it describes a cover plate that corresponds to the same structure as the top cover established in claim 1.
Claims 4-5 also reference the cover plate.
Claim 5 recites “wherein said air guide device has at least one lateral apron”, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “at least one lateral apron” is one of “said two lateral aprons” previously established in parent claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 6-9, and 11 (subject to correction of claim objections above) allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claims 1-2, 6-9, and 11, the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the apparatus as recited in independent claim 1, and at least in part, because it recites the following limitations:
“an air guide device comprising a top cover, two lateral aprons and an air guide ramp disposed between said two lateral aprons, said air guide device being formed in one piece, said air guide device being mounted on said printed circuit board, and configured such that, together with said printed circuit board, forms an air duct bounded by said top cover, said lateral aprons and said printed circuit board and having an air duct inlet and an air duct outlet, the airflow flowing into said air duct through said air duct inlet and leaving said air duct again through said air duct outlet, said air guide ramp being formed integrally with said top cover and said two lateral aprons and being disposed upright on said printed circuit board in an area of said air duct inlet such that the airflow flowing into said air duct inlet is deflected away from said printed circuit board and toward said at least one heat sink” - claim 1.
Long (US 20200174533 A1) is considered to be the closest prior art, and discloses all of the limitations except those portions lined through below:
As to claim 1, Long discloses:
An electronics configuration (Fig. 6-9), comprising:
a printed circuit board 220, 222 (Fig. 8-9);
at least one semiconductor device 242, 250 having a first side (bottom) and a second side (top), said first side of said at least one semiconductor device pointing toward said printed circuit board and said second side being opposite said first side;
at least one heat sink 202 (fins) on said second side of said at least one semiconductor device, said at least one heat sink being thermally connected (at least indirectly) to said at least one semiconductor device;
a fan (system fans; par. 0057) for producing an airflow (see arrows) flowing around said at least one heat sink (within channels of fins including around the sides of the outer fins);
an air guide device 212 (Fig. 6) comprising air duct inlet such that the airflow flowing into said air duct inlet is deflected away from said printed circuit board and toward said at least one heat sink.
Thus, none of the prior art, either alone or in combination, can be reasonably construed as adequately teaching the combination of claim limitations.
Further, Examiner has not identified any double patenting issues.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 3-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, for identical reasons as provided for claim 1 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JACOB R CRUM whose telephone number is (571)270-7665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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) 270-1985. 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.
/JACOB R CRUM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights