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 04/17/2024 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.
Claims 9, 11, 16, 18, and 20 are 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 9, 11, 16, 18, and 20 the phrase "second airflow" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is referring to the airflow produced by the first fan or the second fan. Notably, the amendments to claim 1 introduce a “second airflow” from the first fan, and claims 9 and 16 introduce a “second airflow” from the second fan. For the purposes of compact prosecution, it is believed that applicant intended for the “second airflow” in dependent claims 9, 11, 16, and 18 to refer to a “third airflow”, and the “third airflow” to refer to a “fourth airflow”. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ku et al. (US 20250280506 A1), hereafter referred to as Ku.
With regards to claim 1, Ku discloses:
An information handling system (1000) (Fig. 3) comprising: a pressurized zone (Enclosed area between 114, 116, and 306) (Fig. 3); a non-pressurized zone (Exterior of 1000) (Fig. 3), wherein the pressurized and non-pressurized zones combine to form a hyperbaric thermal architecture for the information handling system (Paragraph [0028] describes the system as hyperbaric); a printed circuit board (310) (Fig. 3) assembly (PCBA) (310, 316) (Fig. 3) located within the pressurized zone (See Fig. 3); a first cooling fan (302) (Fig. 3) located within the non-pressurized zone (See Fig. 3), wherein the first cooling fan (302) (Fig. 3) provides a first airflow (Upper arrow 308) (Fig. 3) into the pressurized zone in a first direction (i.e., above the PCB 310) (Fig. 3) and across the PCBA (See Fig. 3) and a second airflow (Lower arrow 308) (Fig. 3) into the pressurized zone in a second direction (i.e., below the PCB 310) (Fig. 3) and across the PCBA (See Fig. 3); and a sealing component (306) (Fig. 3) located along an intersection of the pressurized zone and the non-pressurized zone (Gasket 306 seals the fan 302 with the rest of the system; see also paragraph [0028]) (Fig. 3), wherein the sealing component creates the hyperbaric thermal architecture between the pressurized and non-pressurized zones (Fan 302 works with sealing gasket 306 to pressurize the internal area; see also paragraph [0028]), wherein adjacent portions (i.e., upper and lower portions of fan 302) (Fig. 3) of the first cooling fan (302) (Fig. 3) are in physical communication with the sealing component (Sealing component 306; 306 and 302 touch on both upper and lower surfaces of fan 302.) (Fig. 3).
With regards to claim 4, Ku discloses all as applied to claim 1, and additionally discloses:
an air inlet (304) (Fig. 3) located within one of a plurality of locations (Located within a bottom surface of base portion 116) (Fig. 3), wherein the plurality of locations includes a bottom surface of a base portion (A bottom surface of base portion 116) (Fig. 3), a front surface of the base portion, a side of the base portion, and a keyboard on the information handling system, wherein the first cooling fan (302) (Fig. 3) pulls ambient air through the air inlet (See Fig. 3; Paragraph [0028]).
With regards to claim 9, as best understood, Ku discloses all as applied to claim 1, and additionally discloses:
a second cooling fan (See two fans 302) (Fig. 5) located within the non-pressurized zone (Fans generate the pressurized zones, and are located within non-pressurized areas) (See Figs. 3, 5), wherein the second cooling fan provides a third airflow (From the second fan on the right side, over PCB 310, similar to lower arrow 308 but on the right side of the board.) (Figs. 3, 5) into the pressurized zone (See Fig. 3) and across a different section of the PCBA (i.e., left vs right) as compared to the airflow provided by the first cooling fan (i.e., left and right fans, providing two airflows to the left and right portions of the cooling apparatus and motherboard) (See Figs. 3, 5).
With regards to claim 10, Ku discloses all as applied to claim 9, and additionally discloses:
wherein the first cooling fan (Left fan 302) (Fig. 5) is located along a first edge (Opening of the left fan) (Figs. 3, 5) of the non-pressurized zone (The openings of the fans define the border of the pressurized and non-pressurized zones, as the fans generate the pressurization) (Best visible Fig. 3) and the second cooling fan (Right fan 302) (Fig. 5) is located along a second edge (Opening of the right fan) (Figs. 3, 5) of the non-pressurized zone (The openings of the fans define the border of the pressurized and non-pressurized zones, as the fans generate the pressurization) (Best visible Fig. 3).
With regards to claim 11, as best understood, Ku discloses all as applied to claim 9, and additionally discloses:
wherein the second cooling fan (Right fan 302) (Fig. 5) further provides a fourth airflow (From the second fan on the right side, over PCB 310, similar to upper arrow 308 but on the right side of the board.) (Figs. 3, 5), wherein the fourth airflow from the second cooling fan is in the first direction (i.e., above the PCB 310) (Fig. 3).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ku in view of Hashiba et al. (US 20230422446 A1), hereafter referred to as Hashiba.
With regards to claim 2, Ku discloses all as applied to claim 1, and additionally discloses:
a heat exchanger (322) (Fig. 3); and a heat pipe (318) (Fig. 3), wherein the first and second airflows (308) (Fig. 3) from the first cooling fan (Fan 302; See Fig. 3) causes hot air to be expelled from the pressurized zone through the heat exchanger (Airflow is left to right through heat exchanger 322, exiting from outlet 122) (Fig. 3).
Ku does not disclose:
a heat removal plate in physical communication with the PCBA; and a heat pipe extending between the heat removal plate and the heat exchanger.
However, Hashiba discloses:
a heat removal plate (31a) (Fig. 2) in physical communication with the PCBA (31a is in contact with processing element 31, which is part of the PCB assembly of Hashiba) (See Fig. 2); and a heat pipe (38) (Fig. 2) extending between the heat removal plate and the heat exchanger (Heat exchanger 41; See Fig. 2).
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 system of Ku with the heat removal plate and associated positioning specifics of Hashiba. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include the heat removal plate and associated positioning specifics in order to improve conductivity between the heat pipe and the processing elements, as is also common in the art (See Paragraph [0030]).
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 Ku in view of Ku et al. (US 20240397662 A1), hereafter referred to as Ku ‘662.
With regards to claim 5, Ku discloses all as applied to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first cooling fan (Left of fans 102) (Fig. 1) is not sealed (See Fig. 1) to the air inlet (Inlets 106) (Fig. 1).
However, Ku ‘662 discloses:
wherein the first cooling fan (Left fan of 102) (Fig. 1) is not sealed to the air inlet (Air inlet 106; See 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 system of Ku with the fan sealing specifics of Ku ‘662. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for simplicity in construction, and to allow for additional airflow paths to enter the fan, improving efficiency.
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).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ku, in further view of Miller et al. (US 6613979 B1), hereafter referred to as Miller.
With regards to claim 6, Ku discloses all as applied to claim 1, and additionally discloses:
wherein the sealing component (306) (Fig. 3) is in a first shape (i.e., such that it seals the fan and chassis) (Fig. 3) when the PCBA has a first configuration (See Fig. 3).
Ku does not disclose:
that the sealing component is in a second shape when the PCBA has a second configuration.
However, Miller discloses:
wherein the sealing component is in a second shape when the PCBA has a second configuration (Lines 56-60 of Col. 5 describe an environmental seal that changes shape when in use, i.e., a secondary configuration.).
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 system of Ku with the two-configuration seal specifics of Miller. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for better tolerance of expansion of components due to heat or vibrations.
Regarding the limitation of “the sealing component is in a second shape when the PCBA has a second configuration”, the limitation is viewed as an obvious design choice, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the second shape is significant. To be more specific, gaskets and sealing surfaces must follow the shape of the area that they are sealing in order to function. So, given a PCBA structure in a different shape for a secondary configuration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to match the sealing surface / gasket to this new shape, to ensure proper sealing of the combined structure.
See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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 8, Ku and Miller disclose all as applied to claim 6, and Ku additionally discloses:
wherein the first shape of the sealing component (306) (Fig. 3) is a straight line extending laterally across the information handling system (See Fig. 3, sealing component 306 extends laterally along the straight edge of fan 302, i.e., into the page).
Additionally, the particular shape of the gasket is viewed as being an obvious design choice, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the second shape is significant. To be more specific, gaskets and sealing surfaces must follow the shape of the area that they are sealing in order to function. Given a straight surface, i.e., the fan housing surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to match the sealing surface / gasket to the fan housing, to ensure proper sealing of the combined structure.
See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
See also KSR, supra.
Claims 3, 12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ku in view of Hashiba, Kim et al. (US 20240381597 A1), and Miller, hereafter referred to as Kim.
With regards to claim 3, Ku discloses all as applied to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
a battery located within the non-pressurized zone, wherein the first cooling fan is positioned between the battery and the PCBA.
However, Kim discloses:
a battery (251) (Fig. 4) located within the non-pressurized zone (i.e., with no airflow from the fans) (See Fig. 4), wherein the first cooling fan (270) (Fig. 2) is positioned between the battery (Battery 251) (Fig. 4) and the PCBA (PCB 260, with associated elements. Fan 270 is between the PCB and the battery.) (See Fig. 4).
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 system of Ku with the battery and associated positioning specifics of Kim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to provide power to the laptop while away from continuous power, and to minimize required space.
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 12, Ku discloses:
An information handling system (1000) (Fig. 3) comprising: a pressurized zone (Enclosed area between 114, 116, and 306) (Fig. 3) and a non-pressurized zone (Exterior of 1000) (Fig. 3) that combine to form a hyperbaric thermal architecture for the information handling system (Paragraph [0028] describes the system as hyperbaric); a printed circuit board (310) (Fig. 3) assembly (PCBA) (310, 316) (Fig. 3) located within the pressurized zone (See Fig. 3); a first cooling fan (302) (Fig. 3) located within the non-pressurized zone (See Fig. 3), wherein the first cooling fan (302) (Fig. 3) provides a first airflow (Upper arrow 308) (Fig. 3) into the pressurized zone in a first direction (i.e., above the PCB 310) (Fig. 3) and across the PCBA (See Fig. 3) and a second airflow (Lower arrow 308) (Fig. 3) into the pressurized zone in a second direction (i.e., below the PCB 310) (Fig. 3) and across the PCBA (See Fig. 3); a sealing component (306) (Fig. 3) located along an intersection of the pressurized zone and the non-pressurized zone (Gasket 306 seals the fan 302 with the rest of the system; see also paragraph [0028]) (Fig. 3), wherein the sealing component creates the hyperbaric thermal architecture between the pressurized and non-pressurized zones (Fan 302 works with sealing gasket 306 to pressurize the internal area; see also paragraph [0028]), wherein adjacent portions (i.e., upper and lower portions of fan 302) (Fig. 3) of the first cooling fan (302) (Fig. 3) are in physical communication with the sealing component (Sealing component 306; 306 and 302 touch on both upper and lower surfaces of fan 302.) (Fig. 3); and an air inlet (304) (Fig. 3) located within a bottom surface (Bottom of 106) (Fig. 3) of a base portion (106) (Fig. 3), wherein the first cooling fan (302) (Fig. 3) pulls ambient air through the air inlet (See Fig. 3; Paragraph [0028]).
Ku does not explicitly disclose:
a battery located within the non-pressurized zone, wherein the first cooling fan is positioned between the battery and the PCBA.
Also, Kim discloses:
a battery (251) (Fig. 4) located within the non-pressurized zone (i.e., with no airflow from the fans) (See Fig. 4), wherein the first cooling fan (270) (Fig. 2) is positioned between the battery (Battery 251) (Fig. 4) and the PCBA (PCB 260, with associated elements. Fan 270 is between the PCB and the battery.) (See Fig. 4).
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 system of Ku with the battery and associated positioning specifics of Kim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to provide power to the laptop while away from continuous power, and to minimize required space.
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claim 16, as best understood, Ku and Kim disclose all as applied to claim 12, and Ku additionally discloses:
a second cooling fan (See two fans 302, right fan) (Fig. 5) located within the non-pressurized zone (Fans generate the pressurized zones, and are located within non-pressurized areas) (See Figs. 3, 5), wherein the second cooling fan provides a third airflow (From the second fan on the right side, over PCB 310, similar to lower arrow 308 but on the right side of the board.) (Figs. 3, 5) into the pressurized zone and across a different section (i.e., left vs right) of the PCBA as compared to the airflow provided by the first cooling fan (i.e., left and right fans, providing two airflows to the left and right portions of the cooling apparatus and motherboard) (See Figs. 3, 5).
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claim 17, Ku and Kim disclose all as applied to claim 16, and Ku additionally discloses:
wherein the first cooling fan (Left fan 302) (Fig. 5) is located along a first edge (Opening of the left fan) (Figs. 3, 5) of the non-pressurized zone (The openings of the fans define the border of the pressurized and non-pressurized zones, as the fans generate the pressurization) (Best visible Fig. 3) and the second cooling fan (Right fan 302) (Fig. 5) is located along a second edge (Opening of the right fan) (Figs. 3, 5) of the non-pressurized zone (The openings of the fans define the border of the pressurized and non-pressurized zones, as the fans generate the pressurization) (Best visible Fig. 3).
See also KSR, supra.
With regards to claim 18, as best understood, Ku and Kim disclose all as applied to claim 16, and Ku additionally discloses:
wherein the second cooling fan (Right fan 302) (Fig. 5) further provides a fourth airflow (From the second fan on the right side, over PCB 310, similar to upper arrow 308 but on the right side of the board.) (Figs. 3, 5), wherein the fourth airflow from the second cooling fan is in the first direction (i.e., above the PCB 310) (Fig. 3).
See also KSR, supra.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ku and Miller in view of Hayek (US 20160071405 A1), hereafter referred to as Hayek.
With regards to claim 7, Ku and Miller disclose all as applied to claim 6, but do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first configuration is a memory on chip configuration, and the second configuration is a socketed memory configuration.
However, Hayek discloses:
wherein the first configuration is a memory on chip configuration (Paragraph [0054] discloses a first memory configuration wherein the memory is soldered to a board, analogous to a memory on chip configuration.), and the second configuration is a socketed memory configuration (Paragraph [0054] discloses a second memory configuration wherein the memory is socketed.).
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 PCB of Ku to include either the soldered or socketed memory configurations. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the system to store states and information, with the soldered memory providing an advantage of simplicity / reliability, and the socketed memory allowing for replacement in the case of failure.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ku and Kim in view of Hashiba.
With regards to claim 13, Ku and Kim disclose all as applied to claim 12, and Ku additionally discloses:
a heat exchanger (322) (Fig. 3); and a heat pipe (318) (Fig. 3), wherein the first and second airflows (308) (Fig. 3) from the first cooling fan (Fan 302; See Fig. 3) causes hot air to be expelled from the pressurized zone through the heat exchanger (Airflow is left to right through heat exchanger 322, exiting from outlet 122) (Fig. 3).
Ku does not disclose:
a heat removal plate in physical communication with the PCBA; and a heat pipe extending between the heat removal plate and the heat exchanger.
However, Hashiba discloses:
a heat removal plate (31a) (Fig. 2) in physical communication with the PCBA (31a is in contact with processing element 31, which is part of the PCB assembly of Hashiba) (See Fig. 2); and a heat pipe (38) (Fig. 2) extending between the heat removal plate and the heat exchanger (Heat exchanger 41; See Fig. 2).
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 system of Ku with the heat removal plate and associated positioning specifics of Hashiba. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include the heat removal plate and associated positioning specifics in order to improve conductivity between the heat pipe and the processing elements, as is also common in the art (See Paragraph [0030]).
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ku and Kim in view of Miller.
With regards to claim 14, Ku and Kim disclose all as applied to claim 12, and Ku additionally discloses:
wherein the sealing component (306) (Fig. 3) is in a first shape (i.e., such that it seals the fan and chassis) (Fig. 3) when the PCBA has a first configuration (See Fig. 3).
Ku does not disclose:
that the sealing component is in a second shape when the PCBA has a second configuration.
However, Miller discloses:
wherein the sealing component is in a second shape when the PCBA has a second configuration (Lines 56-60 of Col. 5 describe an environmental seal that changes shape when in use, i.e., a secondary configuration.).
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 system of Ku with the two-configuration seal specifics of Miller. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for better tolerance of expansion of components due to heat or vibrations.
Regarding the limitation of “the sealing component is in a second shape when the PCBA has a second configuration”, the limitation is viewed as an obvious design choice, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the second shape is significant. To be more specific, gaskets and sealing surfaces must follow the shape of the area that they are sealing in order to function. So, given a PCBA structure in a different shape for a secondary configuration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to match the sealing surface / gasket to this new shape, to ensure proper sealing of the combined structure.
See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ku, Kim, and Miller, in view of Hayek (US 20160071405 A1), hereafter referred to as Hayek.
With regards to claim 15, Ku and Hashiba disclose all as applied to claim 14, but do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first configuration is a memory on chip configuration, and the second configuration is a socketed memory configuration.
However, Hayek discloses:
wherein the first configuration is a memory on chip configuration (Paragraph [0054] discloses a first memory configuration wherein the memory is soldered to a board, analogous to a memory on chip configuration.), and the second configuration is a socketed memory configuration (Paragraph [0054] discloses a second memory configuration wherein the memory is socketed.).
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 PCB of Ku to include either the soldered or socketed memory configurations. One of ordinary skill in related art(s) would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the system to store states and information, with the soldered memory providing an advantage of simplicity / reliability, and the socketed memory allowing for replacement in the case of failure.
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).
23. Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ku in view of Kim, Miller, and Hashiba.
With regards to claim 19, Ku discloses:
An information handling system (1000) (Fig. 3) comprising: a pressurized zone (Enclosed area between 114, 116, and 306) (Fig. 3) and a non-pressurized zone (Exterior of 1000) (Fig. 3) that form a hyperbaric thermal architecture for the information handling system (Paragraph [0028] describes the system as hyperbaric); a printed circuit board (310) (Fig. 3) assembly (PCBA) (310, 316) (Fig. 3) located within the pressurized zone (See Fig. 3); a first cooling fan (302) (Fig. 3) located within the non-pressurized zone (See Fig. 3), wherein the first cooling fan (302) (Fig. 3) provides a first airflow (Upper arrow 308) (Fig. 3) into the pressurized zone in a first direction (i.e., above the PCB 310) (Fig. 3) and across the PCBA (See Fig. 3) and a second airflow (Lower arrow 308) (Fig. 3) into the pressurized zone in a second direction (i.e., below the PCB 310) (Fig. 3) and across the PCBA (See Fig. 3); a sealing component (306) (Fig. 3) located along an intersection of the pressurized zone and the non-pressurized zone (Gasket 306 seals the fan 302 with the rest of the system; see also paragraph [0028]) (Fig. 3), wherein the sealing component creates the hyperbaric thermal architecture between the pressurized and non-pressurized zones (Fan 302 works with sealing gasket 306 to pressurize the internal area; see also paragraph [0028]), wherein adjacent portions (i.e., upper and lower portions of fan 302) (Fig. 3) of the first cooling fan (302) (Fig. 3) are in physical communication with the sealing component (Sealing component 306; 306 and 302 touch on both upper and lower surfaces of fan 302.) (Fig. 3), wherein the sealing component (306) (Fig. 3) is in a first shape (i.e., such that it seals the fan and chassis) (Fig. 3) when the PCBA has a first configuration (See Fig. 3), and an air inlet (304) (Fig. 3) located within a bottom surface (Bottom of 116) (Fig. 3) of a base portion (Base portion 116) (Fig. 3), wherein the first cooling fan (302) (Fig. 3) pulls ambient air through the air inlet (See paragraph [0028], Fig. 3); a heat exchanger (322) (Fig. 3); and a heat pipe (318) (Fig. 3) extending between the PCBA (Package 316 contacts 318) (Fig. 3) and the heat exchanger (Heat exchanger 322; See Fig. 3), wherein the airflow (308) (Fig. 3) from the first cooling fan (Fan 302; See Fig. 3) causes hot air to be expelled from the pressurized zone through the heat exchanger (Airflow is left to right through heat exchanger 322, exiting from outlet 122) (Fig. 3).
Ku does not disclose:
that the sealing component is in a second shape when the PCBA has a second configuration; a battery located within the non-pressurized zone, wherein the first cooling fan is positioned between the battery and the PCBA; and a heat removal plate, wherein the heat pipe extends between the heat removal plate and the heat exchanger.
However, Kim discloses:
a battery (251) (Fig. 4) located within the non-pressurized zone (i.e., with no airflow from the fans) (See Fig. 4), wherein the first cooling fan (270) (Fig. 2) is positioned between the battery (Battery 251) (Fig. 4) and the PCBA (PCB 260, with associated elements. Fan 270 is between the PCB and the battery.) (See Fig. 4).
Additionally, Hashiba discloses:
a heat removal plate (31a) (Fig. 2), wherein the heat pipe (38) (Fig. 2) extends between the heat removal plate and the heat exchanger (Heat exchanger 41; See Fig. 2).
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 system of Ku with the battery and associated positioning specifics of Kim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to provide power to the laptop while away from continuous power, and to minimize required space.
Also, Miller discloses:
wherein the sealing component is in a second shape when the PCBA has a second configuration (Lines 56-60 of Col. 5 describe an environmental seal that changes shape when in use, i.e., a secondary configuration.).
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 system of Ku with the battery and associated positioning specifics of Kim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to provide power to the laptop while away from continuous power, and to minimize required space.
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 system of Ku with the heat removal plate and associated positioning specifics of Hashiba. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include the heat removal plate and associated positioning specifics in order to improve conductivity between the heat pipe and the processing elements, as is also common in the art (See Paragraph [0030]).
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 system of Ku with the two-configuration seal specifics of Miller. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for better tolerance of expansion of components due to heat or vibrations.
Regarding the limitation of “the sealing component is in a second shape when the PCBA has a second configuration”, the limitation is viewed as an obvious design choice, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the second shape is significant. To be more specific, gaskets and sealing surfaces must follow the shape of the area that they are sealing in order to function. So, given a PCBA structure in a different shape for a secondary configuration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to match the sealing surface / gasket to this new shape, to ensure proper sealing of the combined structure.
See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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 20, as best understood, Ku, Kim, Hashiba, and Miller disclose all as applied to claim 19, and Ku additionally discloses:
a second cooling fan (See two fans 302) (Fig. 5) located within the non-pressurized zone (Fans generate the pressurized zones, and are located within non-pressurized areas) (See Figs. 3, 5), wherein the second cooling fan provides a third airflow (From the second fan on the right side, over PCB 310, similar to lower arrow 308 but on the right side of the board.) (Figs. 3, 5) into the pressurized zone and across a different section of the PCBA as compared to the airflow provided by the first cooling fan (i.e., left and right fans, providing two airflows to the left and right portions of the cooling apparatus and motherboard) (See Figs. 3, 5).
See also KSR, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Patent Number for Miller, US 6613979 B1, the Office appreciates Applicant’s attention to detail, and notes that Applicant identified the correct patent number, which has been corrected and is reflected in the current action.
Regarding the arguments beginning on line 23 of page 1 of the arguments, Applicant recites the changes to the independent claim 1, and notes that similar changes have been made to independent claims 12 and 19. Applicant’s amendments are appreciated and advance prosecution. However, the Office notes that as currently written, the amendments are still broad enough to be read on by the art of record, as outlined in the rejection above.
Additionally, the amendments introduce 112(b) issues, as a ”second airflow” from the first fan is introduced in the independent claims, when various dependent claims discuss a “second airflow” from the second fan. It is unclear which fan the “second airflow” is intended to be from, with the Office making the assumption that the airflows are intended to be separate airflows (i.e., four total, with two from each fan), in the interest of compact prosecution. Additional clarification is appreciated.
As the Office respectfully disagrees that the independent claims are allowable, the dependent claims are also viewed as not being allowable as presently written.
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 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 2841
Prosecution Insights