CTNF 18/633,914 CTNF 94704 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Data processing device in claims 15 and 19 which is defined in paragraph [0044] of applicant’s specification as being a chasing and computing device contained within the chassis Electromagnetic interference (EMI) emitting device in claims 15 and 18 which is defined in paragraph [0035] of applicant’s specification as being any electronic device that emits electromagnetic radiation such as phones, personal computers, smart watches etc. Gas flow control component in claims 16 and 19 disclosed in paragraph [0083] of the specification as fans or gas flow monitoring sensors Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 15-20 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. Regarding claims 15 and 18 , the limitation “proximate to the EMI emitting device” is unclear about what is proximate to the EMI emitting device. In applying art, the limitation has been interpreted as referring to the gas flow. Claims 16-17 , depend upon claim 15 and therefore contain the same rejected claim limitation and are rejected upon the same grounds. Claims 19-20 , depend upon claim 18 and therefore contain the same rejected claim limitation and are rejected upon the same grounds. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 2015/0005947 A1) in view Sizemore (US 2017/0071063 A1) . Regarding claim 15 , Chang discloses a method for managing a data processing device (Chang 1), comprising: monitoring a thermal state (Chang S21) of an electromagnetic interference emitting device (Chang 30)(Examiner notes that Chang’s processor 30 is consistent with applicant’s definition of electromagnetic interference emitting devices since it will emit electromagnetic radiation (applicant’s specification [0035]); and managing the thermal state (Chang S23, S25, and S27) of the electromagnetic interference emitting device based on the monitoring (Chang S22, S23, S25, and S27) by modulating a rate of gas flow that traverses through an internal volume (Chang steps S23, S25, and S27 adjust rotation speeds of a fan which modulates the gas flow produced by the fan), the airflow proximate to the EMI emitting device (Chang [0010], Examiner notes Chang’s fan must be proximate to the EMI emitting device, processor 30 to provide cooling to the processor) . Chang is silent regarding the electromagnetic interference emitting device being located in an electromagnetic interference suppressed internal volume delineated by two electromagnetic radiation absorbing vents. However, Sizemore teaches an electronic equipment housing (see Sizemore figure 12B) comprising an EMI suppressed internal volume (Sizemore 1130) delineated by two electromagnetic radiation absorbing vents (Sizemore 1108 and 1110, see paragraph [0108]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Chang’s method to incorporate Sizemore’s teachings of a housing with an electromagnetic interference suppressed internal volume for containing electronics, delineated by two electromagnetic radiation absorbing vents to produce a predictable result of isolating the electromagnetic interference emitting device from external electromagnetic interference to improve performance, prevent the electromagnetic emitting device from emitting interference that affects other electronic devices and provide a flowpath for cooling airflow to keep the electromagnetic interference emitting device at an optimal operating temperature. Regarding claim 16 , Chang and Sizemore as applied to claim 15 further teach that modulating the rate of gas flow that traverses through the EMI suppressed internal volume comprises activating a gas flow control component in the form of a fan (Chang 10) to modulate the gas flow (Chang S23, S25, and S27). Regarding claim 17 , Chang and Sizemore as applied to claim 16 are silent regarding exact placement of the gas flow control component and a second gas flow that is outside of the EMI suppressed internal volume. However, Sizemore further teaches the electronic equipment housing (see Sizemore figure 12B) has an electromagnetic interference suppressed volume (Sizemore 1130) and a separate compartment (Sizemore 1132) for fans (Sizemore [0109]) that draw a gas flow from a second gas flow in the exterior ambient environment into the electromagnetic radiation absorbing vents (Sizemore [0109]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Chang’s method to further incorporate Chang’s teachings of utilizing a gas flow control component in the form of a fan situated outside of the electromagnetic interference suppressed volume to produce a predictable result of increasing the amount of available space for the electromagnetic interface emitting device, isolating the electromagnetic emitting device from potential electromagnetic interference produced by the fan’s motor, and providing a cooling gas flow from the existing ambient gas flow. Regarding claim 18 , Chang discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium (Chang 20) storing computer instructions (Chang [0010], Examiner notes that Chang’s modules are stored in the storage unit and executed by a processor and are therefore being interpreted as being computer instructions) which, when executed, cause a method for managing a data processing device to be performed (Chang [0010]), the method comprising: monitoring a thermal state (Chang S21) of an electromagnetic interference emitting device (Chang 30)(Examiner notes that Chang’s processor emits electromagnetic radiation during operation and is consistent with applicant’s definition of electromagnetic interference emitting devices which includes any devices that emit electromagnetic radiation (applicant’s specification [0035]); and managing the thermal state (Chang S23, S25, and S27) of the electromagnetic interference emitting device based on the monitoring (Chang S22, S23, S25, and S27) by modulating a rate of gas flow that traverses through an internal volume (Chang steps S23, S25, and S27 adjust rotation speeds of a fan which modulates the gas flow produced by the fan) ), the gas flow proximate to the EMI emitting device (Chang [0010], Examiner notes Chang’s fan must be proximate to the EMI emitting device, processor 30 to provide cooling to the processor). Chang is silent regarding the electromagnetic interference emitting device being located in an electromagnetic interference suppressed internal volume delineated by two electromagnetic radiation absorbing vents. However, Sizemore teaches an electronic equipment housing (see Sizemore figure 12B) comprising an EMI suppressed internal volume (Sizemore 1130) delineated by two electromagnetic radiation absorbing vents (Sizemore 1108 and 1110, see paragraph [0108]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Chang’s non-transitory computer readable medium to incorporate Sizemore’s teachings of a housing with an electromagnetic interference suppressed internal volume for containing electronics, delineated by two electromagnetic radiation absorbing vents to produce a predictable result of isolating the electromagnetic interference emitting device from external electromagnetic interference to improve performance, prevent the electromagnetic emitting device from emitting interference that affects other electronic devices and provide a flowpath for cooling airflow to keep the electromagnetic interference emitting device at an optimal operating temperature. Regarding claim 19 , Chang and Sizemore as applied to claim 18 further teach that modulating the rate of gas flow that traverses through the EMI suppressed internal volume comprises activating a gas flow control component in the form of a fan (Chang 10) to modulate the gas flow (Chang S23, S25, and S27). Regarding claim 20 , Chang and Sizemore as applied to claim 19 are silent regarding exact placement of the gas flow control component and a second gas flow that is outside of the EMI suppressed internal volume. However, Sizemore further teaches the electronic equipment housing (see Sizemore figure 12B) has an electromagnetic interference suppressed volume (Sizemore 1130) and a separate compartment (Sizemore 1132) for fans (Sizemore [0109]) that draw a gas flow from a second gas flow in the exterior ambient environment into the electromagnetic radiation absorbing vents (Sizemore [0109]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Chang’s non-transitory computer readable medium to further incorporate Chang’s teachings of utilizing a gas flow control component in the form of a fan situated outside of the electromagnetic interference suppressed volume to produce a predictable result of increasing the amount of available space for the electromagnetic interface emitting device, isolating the electromagnetic emitting device from potential electromagnetic interference produced by the fan’s motor, and providing a cooling gas flow from the existing ambient gas flow. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R BRAWNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm EST. 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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. /CHARLES R BRAWNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/633,914 Page 2 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/633,914 Page 3 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/633,914 Page 4 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/633,914 Page 6 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/633,914 Page 7 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/633,914 Page 8 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/633,914 Page 9 Art Unit: 3762 Application/Control Number: 18/633,914 Page 10 Art Unit: 3762
Prosecution Insights