DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
2. Claims 1-20 have been examined and rejected. This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on July 8, 2026, which has been entered in the above identified application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-3, 7, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Niu et al (Pub. No. US 2016/0202740).
4-1. Regarding claims 1 and 18, Niu teaches the claim comprising: at least one electronic component that generates heat during operation, by disclosing various components of an electronic device 100 including an electronic component 110 that generates heat in the electronic device [paragraphs 15-16; figure 1].
Niu teaches a fan mechanism positioned and configured to induce flow of air to dissipate the heat generated by the at least one electronic component, by disclosing a fan module 130 that cools the electronic component 110 [paragraph 17, lines 1-2].
Niu teaches a controller operably connected to the fan mechanism and programmed to intermittently operate the fan mechanism to repeatedly alternate between running the fan mechanism during a first predetermined time period and the fan mechanism being off during a second predetermined time period, by disclosing a fan controller 140 that controls the operation state of the fan module [paragraph 17, lines 2-6]. As shown in [figure 3], the fan may repeatedly alternate between enabled and disabled for a certain amount of time [paragraph 28; figure 3].
4-2. Regarding claim 2, Niu teaches all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the first predetermined time period has a different length of time relative to the second predetermined time period, by disclosing that as shown in [figure 3], the fan may repeatedly alternate between enabled and disabled for different amounts of time [paragraph 28; figure 3].
4-3. Regarding claim 3, Niu teaches all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the first predetermined time period is greater than the second predetermined time period, by disclosing that as shown in [figure 3], the periods D1 and D2 in which the fan module 130 is enabled is greater than the periods when the fan module is disabled [paragraph 28; figure 3].
4-4. Regarding claim 7, Niu teaches all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the at least one electronic component comprises at least one of: a central processing unit; an embedded multimedia card; a memory device; a wireless transceiver; a power supply; or an amplifier, by disclosing that the electronic component 110 is a CPU [paragraph 16].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu et al (Pub. No. US 2016/0202740) in view of Simard et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,441,155).
6-1. Regarding claim 4, Niu teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Niu does not expressly teach wherein the first predetermined time period is between four and five minutes and the second predetermined time period is between three minutes and thirty seconds and four minutes and thirty seconds. Simard discloses that it was well known to allow a user to customize a cycle program mode for a fan, where the fan will cycle between a run period where the fan is on and an idle period where the fan is off [column 19, lines 1-3]. The run and idle periods may be different [column 19, lines 3-5, 18-19]. Shorter or longer idle periods may be used, and in some cases, the run and idle periods may be set in time increments, such as one minute increments, two minute increments, three minute increments, five minute increments, ten minute increments, or any other suitable increment of time, as desired [column 19, lines 10-15]. This would allow for more precise temperature control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a customized cycle program mode that allows the user to set run and idle periods of a fan, as taught by Simard. This would allow for more precise temperature control. Examiner notes that the precise lengths of the first and second predetermined time periods are a matter of “routine optimization” (see MPEP 2144.05(II)) since a person of ordinary skill in the art would want to find a fan cycle, based on the object to be cooled, that would be sustainable in lowering temperature of the object while optimizing energy efficiency. Based on having the ability to specify a time period, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range because modifying the time period is easily achievable via the interface, and how it affects the temperature is readily observable.
6-2. Regarding claim 5, Niu teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Niu does not expressly teach wherein the first predetermined time period is about four minutes and thirty seconds and the second predetermined time period is about four minutes. Simard discloses that it was well known to allow a user to customize a cycle program mode for a fan, where the fan will cycle between a run period where the fan is on and an idle period where the fan is off [column 19, lines 1-3]. The run and idle periods may be different [column 19, lines 3-5, 18-19]. Shorter or longer idle periods may be used, and in some cases, the run and idle periods may be set in time increments, such as one minute increments, two minute increments, three minute increments, five minute increments, ten minute increments, or any other suitable increment of time, as desired [column 19, lines 10-15]. This would allow for more precise temperature control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a customized cycle program mode that allows the user to set run and idle periods of a fan, as taught by Simard. This would allow for more precise temperature control. Examiner notes that the precise lengths of the first and second predetermined time periods are a matter of “routine optimization” (see MPEP 2144.05(II)) since a person of ordinary skill in the art would want to find a fan cycle, based on the object to be cooled, that would be sustainable in lowering temperature of the object while optimizing energy efficiency. Based on having the ability to specify a time period, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range because modifying the time period is easily achievable via the interface, and how it affects the temperature is readily observable.
7. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu et al (Pub. No. US 2016/0202740) in view of Kaneko (Pub. No. US 2008/0180913).
7-1. Regarding claim 6, Niu teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Niu does not expressly teach the claim further comprising heat dissipation fins adjacent to the fan mechanism. Kaneko discloses a fin unit mounted in a housing opposed to a cooling fan that has high heat conductivity [paragraphs 29, 41]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the electronic device of Niu, heat dissipation fins, as taught by Kaneko. This would allow the fan to dissipate thermal energy much faster and more efficiently.
8. Claim 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu et al (Pub. No. US 2016/0202740) in view of VAP11AC WiFi Bridge and Extender by Vonets, herein after Vonets, as evidenced by “VAP 11AC Product Specification” which was available to the public at least as of November 5, 2020 (see YouTube video by Ihf entitled “VONETS VAP 11AC Wifi Bridge Configure Video by computer or by smartphone.”).
8-1. Regarding claim 8, Niu teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Niu does not expressly teach wherein the at least one electronic component comprises electronic components of a wireless signal extender. Vonets discloses a WiFi Bridge and Extender that has built-in 2 high-power FEM, built-in intelligent automatic start/stop cooling fan [VAP 11AC Product Specification, page 1, bullet 18] and that extends WiFi transmission distance [VAP 11AC Product Specification, page 3, first table – Application Method]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the electronic device of Niu, components of a wireless signal extender, as taught by Vonets. This would extend the usefulness of the cooling capability at a reduced noise level of Niu [see Niu, paragraph 26] to devices that expand existing network coverage.
8-2. Regarding claim 9, Niu teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Niu does not expressly teach the claim further comprising a housing containing the at least one electronic component and the fan mechanism, wherein the housing has an overall size of less than five inches cubed. Vonets discloses a WiFi Bridge and Extender that has built-in 2 high-power FEM, built-in intelligent automatic start/stop cooling fan [VAP 11AC Product Specification, page 1, bullet 18] and that is 93mm x 45mm x 24mm [VAP 11AC Product Specification, page 2, first table – “Product size”]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electronic device of Niu in a housing with small dimensions, as taught by Vonets. This would increase the ease of portability of the electronic device.
8-3. Regarding claim 10, Niu-Vonets teach all the limitations of claim 9, wherein the housing has an overall size of less than four inches cubed, by disclosing that the housing has dimensions of 93mm x 45mm x 24mm [VAP 11AC Product Specification, page 2, first table – “Product size”].
9. Claims 11, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu et al (Pub. No. US 2016/0202740) in view of Miyata (U.S. Patent No. 9,298,073).
9-1. Regarding claims 11 and 20, Niu teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 18 respectfully. Niu does not expressly teach wherein the controller is programmed to run the fan mechanism during the first predetermined time period at a speed of less than 2500 rpm. Miyata discloses that during a mode of operation where components are operated at a lower temperature than normal, operating an exhaust fan intermittently based on a preset switching program according to which the operation of the exhaust fan is switched (start rotating/stop rotating), wherein the exhaust fan is repeatedly run at 1500 rpm for a certain time period and then lowered to 0 rpm for another time period [column 9, lines 3-30; figures 4A, B]. This would help keep components within a certain range of temperatures while conserving power [column 9, lines 31-43]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeatedly alternate running the fan of Niu at 1500 rpm during a first time period and off during a second time period, as taught by Miyata. This would help maintain reliability of certain components by keeping the components within a temperature range while conserving power.
9-2. Regarding claim 12, Niu teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Niu does not expressly teach wherein the controller is programmed to run the fan mechanism during the first predetermined time period at a speed of about 2000 rpm or less. Miyata discloses that during a mode of operation where components are operated at a lower temperature than normal, operating an exhaust fan intermittently based on a preset switching program according to which the operation of the exhaust fan is switched (start rotating/stop rotating), wherein the exhaust fan is repeatedly run at 1500 rpm for a certain time period and then lowered to 0 rpm for another time period [column 9, lines 3-30; figures 4A, B]. This would help keep components within a certain range of temperatures while conserving power [column 9, lines 31-43]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeatedly alternate running the fan of Niu at 1500 rpm during a first time period and off during a second time period, as taught by Miyata. This would help maintain reliability of certain components by keeping the components within a temperature range while conserving power.
10. Claims 13-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu et al (Pub. No. US 2016/0202740), in view of VAP11AC WiFi Bridge and Extender by Vonets, herein after Vonets, as evidenced by “VAP 11AC Product Specification” which was available to the public at least as of November 5, 2020 (see YouTube video by Ihf entitled “VONETS VAP 11AC Wifi Bridge Configure Video by computer or by smartphone.”), and further in view of Smith, III et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,489,905), herein after Smith.
10-1. Regarding claim 13, Niu teaches the claim comprising: a central processing unit that generates heat during operation, by disclosing various components of an electronic device 100 including an electronic component 110 that is a CPU that generates heat in the electronic device [paragraphs 15-16; figure 1].
Niu teaches… a fan mechanism positioned and configured to induce flow of air to dissipate the heat generated by the central processing unit, by disclosing a fan module 130 that cools the electronic component 110 [paragraph 17, lines 1-2].
Niu teaches a controller operably connected to the fan mechanism and programmed to intermittently operate the fan mechanism to repeatedly alternate between running the fan mechanism during a first predetermined time period and the fan mechanism being off during a second predetermined time period to maintain a temperature of the central processing unit, by disclosing a fan controller 140 that controls the operation state of the fan module [paragraph 17, lines 2-6]. As shown in [figure 3], the fan may repeatedly alternate between enabled and disabled for a certain amount of time [paragraph 28; figure 3].
Niu does not expressly teach a wireless transceiver operably coupled to and controlled by the central processing unit. Vonets discloses a WiFi Bridge and Extender that has built-in 2 high-power FEM, built-in intelligent automatic start/stop cooling fan [VAP 11AC Product Specification, page 1, bullet 18], that transmits and receives data [Vonets, VAP 11AC Product Specification, page 2, second table – Basic Function], and that extends WiFi transmission distance [VAP 11AC Product Specification, page 3, first table – Application Method]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the electronic device of Niu, components of a wireless signal extender, as taught by Vonets. This would extend the usefulness of the cooling capability at a reduced noise level of Niu [see Niu, paragraph 26] to devices that communicate wirelessly and expand existing network coverage.
Niu-Vonets do not expressly teach maintaining the temperature of the central processing unit at less than 80° C. Smith discloses system fans that are controlled to maintain a maximum idle main processor operating temperature of approximately 67 degrees Celsius [column 3, lines 6-14]. This would help preserve the device’s longevity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the fan controller of Niu-Vonets to maintain the temperature of the processor at approximately 67 degrees Celsius, as taught by Smith. This would help preserve the device’s longevity.
10-2. Regarding claim 14, Niu-Vonets-Smith teach all the limitations of claim 13, wherein the intermittent operation of the fan mechanism maintains the temperature of the central processing unit at less than 75° C, by disclosing maintaining a maximum idle main processor operating temperature of approximately 67 degrees Celsius [Smith, column 3, lines 6-14].
10-3. Regarding claim 16, Niu-Vonets-Smith teach all the limitations of claim 13, wherein the controller is configured to operate the fan mechanism to generate less than 12 decibels of sound when operating during the first predetermined time period, by disclosing that the noise generated by the fan module 130 in an enabled period is less than a threshold value (such as 3 db) sensible by a human ear [Niu, paragraph 26].
10-4. Regarding claim 17, Niu-Vonets-Smith teach all the limitations of claim 13, wherein the wireless transceiver is configured to receive a wireless signal and transmit an amplified wireless signal, by disclosing use of the WiFi Bridge and Extender for WiFi hotspot exchange [Vonets, VAP 11AC Product Specification, page 2, second table – Basic Function] and extending WiFi transmission distance [Vonets, VAP 11AC Product Specification, page 3, first table – Application Method].
11. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu et al (Pub. No. US 2016/0202740), in view of VAP11AC WiFi Bridge and Extender by Vonets, herein after Vonets, as evidenced by “VAP 11AC Product Specification” which was available to the public at least as of November 5, 2020 (see YouTube video by Ihf entitled “VONETS VAP 11AC Wifi Bridge Configure Video by computer or by smartphone.”), in view of Smith, III et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,489,905), herein after Smith, and further in view of Miyata (U.S. Patent No. 9,298,073).
11-1. Regarding claim 15, Niu-Vonets-Smith teach all the limitations of claim 13. Niu-Vonets-Smith do not expressly teach wherein the controller is configured to operate the fan mechanism at a speed of less than 2500 rpm during the first predetermined time period. Miyata discloses that during a mode of operation where components are operated at a lower temperature than normal, operating an exhaust fan intermittently based on a preset switching program according to which the operation of the exhaust fan is switched (start rotating/stop rotating), wherein the exhaust fan is repeatedly run at 1500 rpm for a certain time period and then lowered to 0 rpm for another time period [column 9, lines 3-30; figures 4A, B]. This would help keep components within a certain range of temperatures while conserving power [column 9, lines 31-43]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeatedly alternate running the fan of Niu-Vonets-Smith at 1500 rpm during a first time period and off during a second time period, as taught by Miyata. This would help maintain reliability of certain components by keeping the components within a temperature range while conserving power.
12. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu et al (Pub. No. US 2016/0202740) in view of Smith, III et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,489,905).
12-1. Regarding claim 19, Niu teaches all the limitations of claim 18, wherein the electronic device comprises a central processing unit, by disclosing that the electronic component 110 is a CPU [paragraph 16].
Niu does not expressly teach the intermittent operation of the fan mechanism maintains a temperature of the central processing unit at less than 80° C. Smith discloses system fans that are controlled to maintain a maximum idle main processor operating temperature of approximately 67 degrees Celsius [column 3, lines 6-14]. This would help preserve the device’s longevity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the fan controller of Niu to maintain the temperature of the processor at approximately 67 degrees Celsius, as taught by Smith. This would help preserve the device’s longevity.
Response to Arguments
13. Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant alleges that Niu et al (Pub. No. US 2016/0202740) does not teach "a controller operably connected to the fan mechanism and programmed to intermittently operate the fan mechanism to repeatedly alternate between running the fan mechanism during a first predetermined time period and the fan mechanism being off during a second predetermined time period" because Niu’s disclosure of a fan controller that controls a fan to repeatedly alternate between enabled and disabled for a certain amount of time does not establish that the duration of the enabled interval or the duration of the disabled interval is predetermined.
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Niu discloses a fan controller 140 that controls the operation state of the fan module [paragraph 17, lines 2-6]. Upon sensing that the temperature of an electronic component is lower than a threshold temperature, the fan controller enables the fan module intermittently to cool the electronic component [paragraph 24]. As shown in [figure 3], the fan controller enables the fan module periodically, that is, the enabled periods (such as period D1 or D2 in which the fan module is enabled) are the same [paragraph 28; figure 3]. No other sensing is disclosed, nor any other factor that would dynamically change the duration of the time intervals with which the fan is enabled and disabled. Thus, the time periods with which the fan is enabled and disabled after sensing that the temperature of the electronic component is lower than a threshold temperature, is predetermined.
Applicant alleges that the Office’s citation to [Niu, paragraph 29, lines 1-6] points away from predetermined intervals because it describes a transition between two nonzero rotational speeds. The claims to which this pertains, dependent claims 11, 12, 15, and 20 have been reconsidered and are now rejected using Miyata (U.S. Patent No. 9,298,073) to teach running the fan mechanism during the first predetermined time period at a certain speed. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant alleges that Niu cannot simultaneously disclose predetermined on and off intervals for purposes of 102 and lack them for purposes of 103, as set forth in dependent claims 4 and 5.
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, as discussed above, Niu discloses that the fan controller enables the fan module periodically, that is, the enabled periods (such as period D1 or D2 in which the fan module is enabled) are the same [paragraph 28; figure 3]. No other sensing is disclosed, nor any other factor that would dynamically change the duration of the time intervals with which the fan is enabled and disabled. Thus, the time periods with which the fan is enabled and disabled after sensing that the temperature of the electronic component is lower than a threshold temperature, is predetermined. While Niu discloses setting predetermined time periods with which the fan is enabled and disabled, Niu does not expressly teach that those predetermined time periods are of the duration set out in claims 4 and 5. Simard et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,441,155) was introduced to show that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a customized cycle program mode that allows the user to set run and idle periods of a fan. This would allow for more precise temperature control. Thus, use of Simard is not at odds with Niu’s teaching of predetermined time periods with which the fan is enabled and disabled.
Regarding independent claim 18, Applicant alleges that no passage of Niu is identified as disclosing the recited acts of positioning, operably coupling, or programming because only structural features of Niu’s electronic device 100 were identified.
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, the structure and operation of the electronic device 100 of Niu implicitly requires the positioning, operably coupling, and programming as set forth in the claim.
Similar arguments with respect to claim 1 have been presented for independent claim 18 and thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons.
Regarding dependent claim 20, Applicant alleges that Niu does not teach programming the controller to run the fan mechanism at less than 2500 rpm during the first predetermined time period because the cited passages of Niu describe a basic rotation speed determined according to the temperature of Niu’s electronic component 110, not a speed at which the fan is run during a predetermined time period. Claim 20 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu et al (Pub. No. US 2016/0202740) in view of Miyata (U.S. Patent No. 9,298,073). Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant states that dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, and 20 recite all the limitations of independent claims 1 and 18, and thus, are allowable in view of the remarks set forth regarding independent claims 1 and 18. However, as discussed above, Niu is still considered to teach claims 1 and 18, and consequently, claims 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, and 20 are rejected.
Regarding dependent claims 4 and 5, Applicant alleges that the articulated reason to combine Niu and Simard lacks rational underpinning because a user-selected, fixed run-and-idle timer does not control temperature at all, much less control it more precisely and therefore, the stated benefit does not follow from the proposed modification.
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, when the fan module is enabled, it cools the electronic component [Niu, paragraph 17]. Thus, being able to control how long the fan is enabled would allow the user to control the temperature of the electronic component.
Applicant alleges that the Office’s reliance on “routine optimization” is misplaced because optimization of a variable is available as a rationale only where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, and only where the prior art recognizes the variable in question as a result-effective variable, which has not been established.
Contrary to Applicant’s augments, as discussed above, when the fan module is enabled, it cools the electronic component [Niu, paragraph 17]. Thus, being able to control how long the fan is enabled would allow the user to control the temperature of the electronic component. Therefore, the precise lengths of the first and second predetermined time periods are a matter of “routine optimization” (see MPEP 2144.05(II)) since a person of ordinary skill in the art would want to find a fan cycle, based on the object to be cooled, that would be sustainable in lowering temperature of the object while optimizing energy efficiency. Based on having the ability to specify a time period, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range because modifying the time period is easily achievable via the interface, and how it affects the temperature is readily observable.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant alleges that none of the enumerated increments disclosed in Simard can produce claim 5’s first predetermined time period of about four minutes and thirty seconds.
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, the test for obviousness is not that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Simard discloses that it was well known to allow a user to customize a cycle program mode for a fan, where the fan will cycle between a run period where the fan is on and an idle period where the fan is off [column 19, lines 1-3]. The run and idle periods may be different [column 19, lines 3-5, 18-19]. Shorter or longer idle periods may be used, and in some cases, the run and idle periods may be set in time increments, such as one minute increments, two minute increments, three minute increments, five minute increments, ten minute increments, or any other suitable increment of time, as desired [column 19, lines 10-15]. This would allow for more precise temperature control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a customized cycle program mode that allows the user to set run and idle periods of a fan, as taught by Simard. This would allow for more precise temperature control. Examiner notes that the precise lengths of the first and second predetermined time periods are a matter of “routine optimization” (see MPEP 2144.05(II)) since a person of ordinary skill in the art would want to find a fan cycle, based on the object to be cooled, that would be sustainable in lowering temperature of the object while optimizing energy efficiency. Based on having the ability to specify a time period, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range because modifying the time period is easily achievable via the interface, and how it affects the temperature is readily observable.
Regarding dependent claim 6, Applicant alleges that convection cooling holes of Vonets, as evidenced by “VAP 11AC Product Specification” which was available to the public at least as of November 5, 2020 (see YouTube video by Ihf entitled “VONETS VAP 11AC Wifi Bridge Configure Video by computer or by smartphone.”), formed in the sides of a housing are apertures, not fins, and the Office’s proposed modification supplies a heat sink generally rather than the recited fins. Examiner has rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu et al (Pub. No. US 2016/0202740) in view of Kaneko (Pub. No. US 2008/0180913). Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding dependent claims 9 and 10, Applicant alleges that Vonet’s product dimensions of 93 mm by 45 mm by 24 mm correspond to 3.66 inches by 1.77 inches by 0.94 inches, which is an overall size of approximately 6.13 cubic inches, and not less than five inches cubed nor less than four inches cubed.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification [paragraph 14] recites:
[0014] The electronic device 100 may also include a housing 116, which may contain the electronic component(s) 104 and the fan mechanism 102. In some embodiments, the electronic device 100 may be considered a small electronic device 100, with the housing 116 having an overall size of less than five inches (12.7 cm) cubed (e.g., fitting within a five-inch (12.7 cm) cube). In some examples, the housing 116 may have an overall size of less than four inches (10.16 cm) cubed, such as less than four inches (10.16 cm) by four inches (10.16 cm) by two inches (5.08 cm). In some non-limiting examples, the electronic device 100 may be a wireless communication device, such as a wireless signal extender.
Based on Applicant’s specification, the limitation “five inches cubed” in [claim 9] and “four inches cubed” in [claim 10] are not intended to mean a total volume of five cubic inches and a total volume of four cubic inches. Rather, Applicant’s specification describes the terms as meaning fitting within a five-inch cube and fitting within a four-inch cube, respectively. In other words, claim 9 is interpreted as the housing having an overall size of less than a five-inch cube, and claim 10 is interpreted as the housing having an overall size of less than a four-inch cube. Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Vonet’s product dimensions of 93 mm x 45 mm x 24 mm (3.66 inches x 1.77 inches x 0.94 inches) has an overall size of less than a four-inch cube.
Regarding independent claim 13, similar arguments with respect to claim 1 have been presented for independent claim 13 and thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons.
Regarding dependent claim 16, Applicant alleges that Niu does not teach the controller to operate the fan mechanism “to generate less than 12 decibels of sound when operating during the first predetermined time period” because Niu’s disclosure of the noise generated by the fan module 130 in an enabled period being “less than a threshold value (such as 3 db) sensible by a human ear” does not describe an absolute sound level generated by the fan mechanism, and therefore does not establish that Niu’s fan generates less than 12 decibels of sound during a first predetermined time period.
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, nowhere in the claim or in Applicant’s specification specifies whether the 12 decibels is measured objectively or subjectively. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, Niu’s disclosure of the noise generated by the fan module 130 in an enabled period being less than a threshold value (such as 3 db) sensible by a human ear [Niu, paragraph 26] reads on the claim.
Regarding dependent claim 17, Applicant alleges that Vonets does not teach that the wireless transceiver “receive a wireless signal and transmit an amplified wireless signal” because Voents only establishes that the product extends WiFi transmission distance.
Contrary to Applicant’s argument, Vonets discloses that a basic function of the WiFi Bridge and Extender comprises a WiFi hotspot exchange [VAP 11AC Product Specification, page 2, second table – Basic Function], which requires the reception of a wireless signal. Thus, Vonets is still considered to teach the limitation.
Applicant states that dependent claims 14-17 recite all the limitations of the independent claims, and thus, are allowable in view of the remarks set forth regarding independent claim 13. However, as discussed above, Niu, in view of Vonets, and further in view of Smith, III et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,489,905) are considered to teach claim 13, and consequently, claims 14-17 are rejected.
Applicant states that dependent claim 19 recites all the limitations of independent claim 18, and thus, is allowable in view of the remarks set forth regarding independent claim 18. However, as discussed above, Niu is still considered to teach claim 18, and consequently, claim 19 is rejected.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN H TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8595. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALVIN H TAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
