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 § 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(s) 1, 3-4, 6-8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20070274038 A1) in view of Long (US 20200174533 A1).
As to claim 1, Sun discloses: An electronics configuration (Fig. 3-7), comprising:
a printed circuit board 38 (motherboard; par. 0019-0020);
at least one electronic device (not shown; par. 0019-0020; similarly as 18 in Fig. 1) having a first side (top) and a second side (bottom), said first side of said at least one electronic component pointing toward said printed circuit board and said second side being opposite said first side;
at least one heat sink 32, 34, on said second side of said at least one electronic component, said at least one heat sink being thermally connected to said at least one electronic component;
a fan 21 for producing an airflow flowing around said at least one heat sink; and
an air guide device 22, mounted on said printed circuit board, and configured such that, together with said printed circuit board, forms an air duct having an air duct inlet and an air duct outlet (See Fig. 5), 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 device having an air guide ramp 36 disposed in an area of said air duct inlet 23 such that the airflow flowing into said air duct inlet is deflected toward said at least one heat sink.
Sun does not explicitly disclose (in the current embodiment):
wherein the at least one electronic component is a semiconductor device; and
said air guide device being formed in one piece.
However, Sun also discloses that electronic components include semiconductor devices such as CPU’s (par. 0002), which require heat dissipation (par. 0002-0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sun as further suggested by Sun, e.g., providing:
wherein the at least one electronic component is a semiconductor device;
in order to provide heat dissipation for a CPU.
Further, Long discloses:
said air guide device 204 (and ramp 206; Fig. 6-7, 10) being formed in one piece (see Figures);
in order to provide the air guide device with a ramp, reduce/eliminate air bypass, and increase airflow via the venturi effect (par. 0049).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sun as further suggested by Long, e.g., providing:
said air guide device being formed in one piece;
in order to provide the air guide device with a ramp, reduce/eliminate air bypass, and increase airflow via the venturi effect.
Further, it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of several parts secured together as a unit would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Additionally, 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).
As to claim 3, Sun in view of Long discloses: wherein said air guide device has a cover plate (top; see Fig. 5; Sun) 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 (see Fig. 5).
As to claim 4, Sun in view of Long discloses: wherein said cover plate is disposed parallel to said printed circuit board (see Fig. 5; Sun).
As to claim 6, Sun in view of Long discloses: wherein said fan is disposed such that the airflow flows parallel to said printed circuit board (see Fig. 5; Sun).
As to claim 7, Sun in view of Long discloses: wherein said at least one heat sink has a configuration of cooling fins 34 that have a comb profile whose end face points toward said air duct inlet (see Fig. 3-7; Sun).
As to claim 8, Sun in view of Long does not explicitly disclose:
wherein said air guide device is made from plastic.
However, Long discloses:
wherein said air guide device 152, 154, 200 is made from plastic (par. 0038, 0046);
in order to form the device by molding and provide a suitable material (par. 0038, 0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sun as further suggested by Long, e.g., providing:
wherein said air guide device is made from plastic;
in order to form the device by molding and provide a suitable material.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As to claim 11, Sun in view of Long discloses: A semiconductor switching device (motherboard with CPU), comprising: the electronics configuration according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 2, 5, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20070274038 A1) in view of Long (US 20200174533 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Stock (US 9075581 B2).
As to claim 2, Sun in view of Long does not explicitly disclose:
wherein said air guide device has at least one air guide fin that is disposed in said area of said air duct inlet such that the airflow is directed into said air duct inlet.
However, Stock discloses:
wherein said air guide device 200 (Fig. 2-8) has at least one air guide fin (e.g., sidewalls of guide 220, see also 212, 221) that is disposed in said area of said air duct inlet 222 such that the airflow is directed into said air duct inlet;
in order to direct the flow of air toward the electrical components (col. 3, line 65 – col. 4, line 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sun in view of Long as further suggested by Stock, e.g., providing:
wherein said air guide device has at least one air guide fin that is disposed in said area of said air duct inlet such that the airflow is directed into said air duct inlet;
in order to direct the flow of air toward the semiconductor device(s).
Additionally, 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).
As to claim 5, Sun in view of Long does not explicitly disclose:
wherein said air guide device has at least one lateral apron that is disposed between said cover plate and said printed circuit board and laterally delimits said air duct between said air duct inlet and said air duct outlet.
However, Stock discloses:
wherein said air guide device 200 (Fig. 2-8) has at least one lateral apron (e.g., sidewalls of guide 220, see also 212, 221) that is disposed between said cover plate and said printed circuit board and laterally delimits said air duct between said air duct inlet and said air duct outlet;
in order to direct the flow of air toward the electrical components (col. 3, line 65 – col. 4, line 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sun in view of Long as further suggested by Stock, e.g., providing:
wherein said air guide device has at least one lateral apron that is disposed between said cover plate and said printed circuit board and laterally delimits said air duct between said air duct inlet and said air duct outlet;
in order to direct the flow of air toward the semiconductor device(s).
As to claim 9, Sun in view of Long does not explicitly disclose:
wherein: said at least one heat sink is one of a plurality of heat sinks; and said at least one semiconductor device is one of a plurality of semiconductor devices, each of said semiconductor devices has its own respective said heat sink.
However, Stock discloses:
wherein:
said at least one heat sink is one of a plurality of heat sinks 110A, 110B (Fig. 4); and
said at least one semiconductor device is one of a plurality of semiconductor devices (central processors; col. 3, lines 53-64), each of said semiconductor devices has its own respective said heat sink;
in order to cool a plurality of central processors and/or memory modules (col. 3, lines 53-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sun in view of Long as further suggested by Stock, e.g., providing:
wherein: said at least one heat sink is one of a plurality of heat sinks; and said at least one semiconductor device is one of a plurality of semiconductor devices, each of said semiconductor devices has its own respective said heat sink;
in order to cool a plurality of semiconductor devices including central processors and/or memory modules (col. 3, lines 53-64).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claimed Elements Not Taught
Applicant has suggested that Long does not disclose the newly claimed features (Remarks, p. 11).
However, Examiner has pointed to the ramp of Long being formed in one piece with the sidewalls forming the air guide of Long. The air guide and ramp of Sun may similarly be formed in one piece.
Examiner suggests further defining the structural features of the air guide to overcome the art of record, e.g.:
an air guide device comprising a top cover, two lateral aprons, an air guide ramp, and fins descending from the top cover to an upper surface of the air guide ramp, the fins and air guide ramp disposed between the two lateral aprons, and the air guide device being formed in one piece.
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) 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.
/JACOB R CRUM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835