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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed January 30, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-11 remain pending, but stand rejected for the reasons detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Takemoto is not analogous art because the contra-rotating fans of Takemoto are directed at improving ventilation of a server rack (Arguments, pages 6-8). However, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Examiner submits Takemoto is both in the field of the inventor’s endeavor, and reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, because both Takemoto and the instant application are concerned with using a fan convection system to cool electronic devices. Because the convection system of Takemoto is concerned with cooling electronic devices within a server rack, as opposed to cooling electronic devices within a sealed container, does not relegate Takemoto outside the field of the inventor’s endeavor.
Applicant also submits Takemoto does not discuss wherein the contra-rotating fan cancels out angular momentum in zero-gravity space environment (Arguments, page 8). However, because the contra-rotating fan of Wallinger as modified by Takemoto is structurally identical to the instant application, Examiner submits the contra-rotating fan of Wallinger as modified by Takemoto is capable of performing the recited function. Additionally, Examiner cites McNeil (US Patent No. 6591873), which explicit teaches contra-rotating fans being capable of canceling out angular momentums (see col. 4, ln. 35-51; col. 7, ln. 5-16).
Applicant also argues Wallinger teaches away from combining the contra-rotating fans of Takemoto, because doing so would have increased cost or weight and decreased device payload capacity (Arguments, page 8). However, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it 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). The examiner also recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Here, because Takemoto provides the express benefits of contra-rotating fans (see Paragraphs [0006]-[0010] and [0030]-[0037]), Examiner submits a PHOSITA would have the requisite knowledge of and motivation for incorporating the contra-rotating fans of Takemoto into the device of Wallinger without destroying its intended purpose and with the added benefits a contra-rotating fan provides when cooling electronic devices.
For these reasons, and the reasons detailed below, claims 1-11 stand rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 7, “in zero-gravity space environment” should read --in a zero-gravity space environment--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallinger (US Publication No. 2016/0257433) in view of Takemoto (US Publication No. 2011/0044799) and McNeil (US Patent No. 6591873).
Regarding claim 1, Wallinger discloses a ruggedizing apparatus for electronic equipment in a spacecraft mounted with the electronic equipment (see Figures 1-2, 7-8, 10-15), comprising: a pressure vessel (pressurized structure 101) that is filled with a coolant (fluid 115; see Paragraphs [0052]-[0053]) and places at least a heat-generating electronic circuit (internal components 112) of the electronic equipment within the pressure vessel (101), wherein the heat-generating electronic circuit (112) is immersed in the coolant (115); and a forced liquid-flow generator (circulation device 116) placed within the pressure vessel (101), wherein the forced liquid-flow generator (116) causes the coolant (115) on the heat-generating electronic circuit (112) to move away from the heat-generating electronic circuit (112), wherein the forced liquid-flow generator (116) is a see Paragraph [0048]) causing the coolant (115) to flow in a predetermined direction (see Figure 8).
Wallinger does not disclose wherein the fan is a contra-rotating fan, and wherein the contra-rotating fan comprises a first fan and a second fan which are stacked and fixed on a concentric axis and rotate in opposite directions to cancel out angular momentums in zero-gravity space environment.
However, Takemoto teaches a fan (contra-rotating fan 4) configured to cool electronic equipment (electronic devices 12), wherein the fan is a contra-rotating fan (see Paragraphs [0031]-[0032]), and wherein the contra-rotating fan (4) comprises a first fan (axial fan 2) and a second fan (axial fan 3) which are stacked and fixed on a concentric axis (axes J2, J3; see Paragraph [0024]) and rotate in opposite directions (see Paragraph [0028]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the fans of Wallinger for the contra-rotating fans of Takemoto, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of using a fan device to cool electronic components. Doing so would have also improved energy consumption and heat dissipation by providing an efficient fluid mover within the vessel (see Paragraphs [0006]-[0010] and [0030]-[0037] in Takemoto).
While Wallinger as modified by Takemoto does not explicitly teach wherein the contra-rotating fan is capable of canceling out angular momentums in zero-gravity space environment, McNeil teaches a contra-rotating fan (Figures 1-2, comprised of fans 50, 70), wherein the contra-rotating fan (comprised of 50, 70) comprises a first fan (50) and a second fan (70) which are stacked and fixed on a concentric axis (see col. 6, ln. 1-20) and rotate in opposite directions (see col. 5, ln. 39-54) to cancel out angular momentums in zero-gravity space environment (see col. 4, ln. 35-51; col. 7, ln. 5-16).
Because the contra-rotating fans of Takemoto and McNeil are identical to the contra-rotating fan of the instant application, the contra-rotating fans of Wallinger as modified by Takemoto are considered to be as capable of performing the function as the claimed invention, as taught in McNeil, absent any claimed structural difference. See MPEP § 2114 I & II, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function... A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus' if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” In the instant case, as evidenced by McNeil, because the contra-rotating fans of Takemoto are stacked and fixed on a concentric axis and rotate in opposite directions, the contra-rotating fans of Wallinger as modified by Takemoto are capable of canceling out angular momentums in zero-gravity space environment.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the contra-rotating fans of Wallinger as modified by Takemoto to cancel out angular momentums in zero-gravity space environment, as taught in McNeil. Doing so would have neutralized angular momentum/internal forces and would have provided inertial balance (see col. 4, ln. 35-51; col. 7, ln. 5-16 in McNeil).
Regarding claim 3, Wallinger in view of Takemoto and McNeil teaches the ruggedizing apparatus according to claim 1, and further teaches (in Wallinger) wherein the forced liquid-flow generator (116, as modified by Takemoto) causes the coolant (115) to flow in the predetermined direction (upward) perpendicular to a main surface of the heat-generating electronic circuit (bottom surface of 112; see Figure 8).
Regarding claim 4, Wallinger in view of Takemoto and McNeil teaches the ruggedizing apparatus according to claim 1, and further teaches (in Takemoto) wherein the first fan comprises a first rotating blade unit (Figure 8, blade of first axial fan 2) that causes the coolant (air in Takemoto, corresponding to 115 in Wallinger) to flow in the predetermined direction (upward; see Paragraph [0030]-[0037]); and the second fan comprises a second rotating blade unit (Figure 8, blade of second axial fan 3) that causes the coolant (air in Takemoto, corresponding to 115 in Wallinger) to flow in the predetermined direction (upward; see Paragraph [0030]-[0037]), wherein the first rotating blade unit (2) and the second rotating blade unit (3) rotate in mutually opposite directions on a concentric rotation axis (see Paragraph [0033] and Figure 8).
Regarding claim 6, Wallinger in view of Takemoto and McNeil teaches the ruggedizing apparatus according to claim 1, and further teaches (in Wallinger) wherein the forced liquid-flow generator (116, as modified by Takemoto) causes the coolant (115) to flow in either of a first direction (upward) and a second direction (downward) opposite to the first direction (upward), wherein the first direction (upward) is a direction from the forced liquid-flow generator (116, as modified by Takemoto) to the heat-generating electronic circuit (112), wherein the second direction (downward) is a direction from the heat-generating electronic circuit (112) to the forced liquid-flow generator (116, as modified by Takemoto; see Figure 8).
Regarding claim 7, Wallinger discloses a ruggedizing method for electronic equipment in a spacecraft mounted with the electronic equipment (see Figures 1-2, 7-8, 10-15), comprising: immersing at least a heat-generating electronic circuit (internal components 112) of the electronic equipment in a coolant (fluid 115) of a pressure vessel (pressurized structure 101) that is filled with the coolant (115); and by a forced liquid-flow generator (circulation device 116) placed within the pressure vessel (101), forcedly flowing the coolant (115) on the heat-generating electronic circuit (112) to move away from the heat-generating electronic circuit (112), wherein the forced liquid-flow generator (116) is a see Paragraph [0048]) causing the coolant (115) to flow in a predetermined direction (see Figure 8).
Wallinger does not disclose wherein the fan is a contra-rotating fan, and wherein the contra-rotating fan comprises a first fan and a second fan which are stacked and fixed on a concentric axis and rotate in opposite directions to cancel out angular momentums in zero-gravity space environment.
However, Takemoto teaches a fan (contra-rotating fan 4) configured to cool electronic equipment (electronic devices 12), wherein the fan is a contra-rotating fan (see Paragraphs [0031]-[0032]), and wherein the contra-rotating fan (4) comprises a first fan (axial fan 2) and a second fan (axial fan 3) which are stacked and fixed on a concentric axis (axes J2, J3; see Paragraph [0024]) and rotate in opposite directions (see Paragraph [0028]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the fans of Wallinger for the contra-rotating fans of Takemoto, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of using a fan device to cool electronic components. Doing so would have also improved energy consumption and heat dissipation by providing an efficient fluid mover within the vessel (see Paragraphs [0006]-[0010] and [0030]-[0037] in Takemoto).
While Wallinger as modified by Takemoto does not explicitly teach wherein the contra-rotating fan is capable of canceling out angular momentums in zero-gravity space environment, McNeil teaches a contra-rotating fan (Figures 1-2, comprised of fans 50, 70), wherein the contra-rotating fan (comprised of 50, 70) comprises a first fan (50) and a second fan (70) which are stacked and fixed on a concentric axis (see col. 6, ln. 1-20) and rotate in opposite directions (see col. 5, ln. 39-54) to cancel out angular momentums in zero-gravity space environment (see col. 4, ln. 35-51; col. 7, ln. 5-16).
Because the contra-rotating fans of Takemoto and McNeil are identical to the contra-rotating fan of the instant application, the contra-rotating fans of Wallinger as modified by Takemoto are considered to be as capable of performing the function as the claimed invention, as taught in McNeil, absent any claimed structural difference. See MPEP § 2114 I & II, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function... A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus' if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” In the instant case, as evidenced by McNeil, because the contra-rotating fans of Takemoto are stacked and fixed on a concentric axis and rotate in opposite directions, the contra-rotating fans of Wallinger as modified by Takemoto are capable of canceling out angular momentums in zero-gravity space environment.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the contra-rotating fans of Wallinger as modified by Takemoto to cancel out angular momentums in zero-gravity space environment, as taught in McNeil. Doing so would have neutralized angular momentum/internal forces and would have provided inertial balance (see col. 4, ln. 35-51; col. 7, ln. 5-16 in McNeil).
Regarding claim 9, Wallinger in view of Takemoto and McNeil teaches the ruggedizing method according to claim 7, and further teaches wherein the forced liquid-flow generator (116, as modified by Takemoto) causes the coolant (115) to flow in the predetermined direction (upward) perpendicular to a main surface of the heat-generating electronic circuit (bottom surface of 112; see Figure 8).
Regarding claim 11, Wallinger in view of Takemoto and McNeil teaches the ruggedizing method according to claim 7, and further teaches (in Wallinger) wherein by the forced liquid-flow generator (116, as modified by Takemoto), the coolant (115) flows in either of a first direction (upward) and a second direction (downward) opposite to the first direction (upward), wherein the first direction (upward) is a direction from the forced liquid-flow generator (116, as modified by Takemoto) to the heat-generating electronic circuit (112), wherein the second direction (downward) is a direction from the heat-generating electronic circuit (112) to the forced liquid-flow generator (116, as modified by Takemoto; see Figure 8).
Claims 2, 5, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallinger (US Publication No. 2016/0257433), Takemoto (US Publication No. 2011/0044799), McNeil (US Patent No. 6591873), and in further view of Cheng (US Publication No. 2021/0219454).
Regarding claim 2, Wallinger in view of Takemoto and McNeil teaches the ruggedizing apparatus according to claim 1, and further teaches (in Wallinger) wherein the forced liquid-flow generator (116, as modified by Takemoto) causes the coolant on the heat-generating electronic circuit (112) to flow toward an inner wall of the pressure vessel (inner walls of 101; see Figure 8 and Paragraphs [0052]-[0053], [0072]-[0073]).
Wallinger in view of Takemoto and McNeil does not expressly teach wherein the forced liquid-flow generator causes bubbles on the heat generating electronic circuit to flow toward an inner wall of the pressure vessel, wherein the bubbles are generated by boiling the coolant on the heat-generating electronic circuit.
However, Cheng teaches wherein a forced liquid- flow generator (turbulence generator 9) causes a coolant (liquid coolant 8) and bubbles (see Figures 1-2, 4-5) on a heat generating electronic circuit (heat source 7) to flow toward an inner wall (inner wall of tank 10) of a pressure vessel (tank 10), wherein the bubbles are generated by boiling of the coolant (8) on the heat-generating electronic circuit (7) (see Paragraphs [0022]-[0035]).
Because Wallinger and Cheng both teach an immersion cooling apparatus (Paragraphs [0052]-[0053] in Wallinger; Paragraph [0023] in Cheng), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the coolant of Wallinger as modified by Takemoto and McNeil for the dielectric coolant of Cheng according to known methods to yield the predictable results of cooling electronic devices with immersive coolant. Doing so would have also provided the apparatus of Wallinger with dielectric coolant, suitable for being in contact with electronic heat sources and effective at absorbing heat generated by the heat sources (see Paragraph [0022] in Cheng).
Regarding claim 5, Wallinger in view of Takemoto and McNeil teaches the ruggedizing apparatus according to claim 1, and further teaches (in Wallinger) wherein the forced liquid-flow generator (116, as modified by Takemoto) causes the coolant (115) to flow toward the heat-generating electronic circuit (112), thereby the coolant (115) on the heat-generating electronic circuit (112) flowing toward an inner wall of the pressure vessel (inner walls of 101; see Figure 8 and Paragraphs [0052]-[0053], [0072]-[0073]).
Wallinger in view of Takemoto and McNeil does not expressly teach wherein the forced liquid-flow generator causes bubbles on the heat generating electronic circuit to flow toward an inner wall of the pressure vessel, wherein the bubbles are generated by boiling of the coolant on the heat-generating electronic circuit.
However, Cheng teaches wherein a forced liquid- flow generator (turbulence generator 9) causes a coolant (liquid coolant 8) and bubbles (see Figures 1-2, 4-5) on a heat generating electronic circuit (heat source 7) to flow toward an inner wall (inner wall of tank 10) of a pressure vessel (tank 10), wherein the bubbles are generated by boiling of the coolant (8) on the heat-generating electronic circuit (7) (see Paragraphs [0022]- [0035]).
Because Wallinger and Cheng both teach an immersion cooling apparatus (Paragraphs [0052]-[0053] in Wallinger; Paragraph [0023] in Cheng), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the coolant of Wallinger as modified by Takemoto and McNeil for the dielectric coolant of Cheng according to known methods to yield the predictable results of cooling electronic devices with immersive coolant. Doing so would have also provided the apparatus of Wallinger with dielectric coolant, suitable for being in contact with electronic heat sources and effective at absorbing heat generated by the heat sources (see Paragraph [0022] in Cheng).
Regarding claim 8, Wallinger in view of Takemoto and McNeil teaches the ruggedizing method according to claim 7, and further teaches (in Wallinger) wherein by the forced liquid-flow generator (116, as modified by Takemoto), the coolant (115) on the heat-generating electronic circuit (112) flow toward an inner wall of the pressure vessel (inner walls of 101; see Figure 8 and Paragraphs [0052]-[0053], [0072]-[0073]).
Wallinger in view of Takemoto and McNeil does not expressly teach wherein by forced liquid-flow generator, bubbles on the heat generating electronic circuit flow toward an inner wall of the pressure vessel, wherein the bubbles are generated by boiling the coolant on the heat-generating electronic circuit.
However, Cheng teaches wherein by a forced liquid- flow generator (turbulence generator 9), coolant (liquid coolant 8) and bubbles (see Figures 1-2, 4-5) on a heat generating electronic circuit (heat source 7) flow toward an inner wall (inner wall of tank 10) of a pressure vessel (tank 10), wherein the bubbles are generated by boiling of the coolant (8) on the heat-generating electronic circuit (7) (see Paragraphs [0022]- [0035]).
Because Wallinger and Cheng both teach an immersion cooling apparatus (Paragraphs [0052]-[0053] in Wallinger; Paragraph [0023] in Cheng), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the coolant of Wallinger as modified by Takemoto and McNeil for the dielectric coolant of Cheng according to known methods to yield the predictable results of cooling electronic devices with immersive coolant. Doing so would have also provided the apparatus of Wallinger with dielectric coolant, suitable for being in contact with electronic heat sources and effective at absorbing heat generated by the heat sources (see Paragraph [0022] in Cheng).
Regarding claim 10, Wallinger in view of Takemoto and McNeil teaches the ruggedizing method according to claim 7, and further teaches wherein by the forced liquid-flow generator (116, as modified by Takemoto), the coolant flows (115) toward the heat-generating electronic circuit (112), thereby the coolant (115) on the heat-generating electronic circuit (112) flowing toward an inner wall of the pressure vessel (inner wall of 101; see Figure 8 and Paragraphs [0052]-[0053], [0072]-[0073]).
Wallinger in view of Takemoto and McNeil does not explicitly teach wherein by a forced liquid-flow generator, bubbles on the heat-generating electronic circuit flowing toward an inner wall of the pressure vessel, wherein the bubbles are generated by boiling of the coolant on the heat-generating electronic circuit.
However, Cheng teaches wherein by a forced liquid- flow generator (turbulence generator 9), coolant (liquid coolant 8) and bubbles (see Figures 1-2, 4-5) on a heat generating electronic circuit (heat source 7) flow toward an inner wall (inner wall of tank 10) of a pressure vessel (tank 10), wherein the bubbles are generated by boiling of the coolant (8) on the heat-generating electronic circuit (7) (see Paragraphs [0022]- [0035]).
Because Wallinger and Cheng both teach an immersion cooling apparatus (Paragraphs [0052]-[0053] in Wallinger; Paragraph [0023] in Cheng), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the coolant of Wallinger as modified by Takemoto and McNeil for the dielectric coolant of Cheng according to known methods to yield the predictable results of cooling electronic devices with immersive coolant. Doing so would have also provided the apparatus of Wallinger with dielectric coolant, suitable for being in contact with electronic heat sources and effective at absorbing heat generated by the heat sources (see Paragraph [0022] in Cheng).
Alternatively, claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shepard (US Publication No. 2017/0290198) in view of Wallinger (US Publication No. 2016/0257433), Takemoto (US Publication No. 2011/0044799), and McNeil (US Patent No. 6591873).
Regarding claim 3, Shepard discloses a ruggedizing apparatus (Figure 1, electronic arrangement 100) for electronic equipment (electronic device 104), comprising: a pressure vessel (sealed housing 102) that is filled with a coolant (coolant C) and places at least a heat-generating electronic circuit (switch 110) of the electronic equipment (104) within the pressure vessel (102), wherein the heat-generating electronic circuit (110) is immersed in the coolant (coolant C); and a forced liquid-flow generator (actuated element 126) placed within the pressure vessel (102), wherein the forced liquid-flow generator (126) causes the coolant (coolant C) on the heat-generating electronic circuit (110) to move away from the heat-generating electronic circuit (110), wherein the forced liquid-flow generator (126) is a coolant C) to flow in a predetermined direction (toward 104),
wherein the forced liquid-flow generator (126) causes the coolant (coolant C) to flow in the predetermined direction (toward 104) perpendicular to a main surface of the heat-generating electronic circuit (top surface of 110).
Shepard does not disclose wherein the ruggedizing apparatus for electronic equipment is in a spacecraft mounted with the electronic equipment.
However, Wallinger teaches a ruggedizing apparatus (space vehicle 100) for electronic equipment (see Figure 2) in a spacecraft (rocket 1) mounted with the electronic equipment (see Figures 1-2), comprising: a pressure vessel (pressurized structure 101) including a single interior space (space within 101) filled with coolant (fluid 115; see Paragraphs [0052]-[0053]), and a fan (Figure 11, circulation device 116) within the pressure vessel (101).
Because the aerospace apparatuses of Wallinger and Shepard comprise similarly configured pressure vessels with immersed, electronic components mounted therein (see Figure 8 in Wallinger, and Paragraph [0002] and Figure 1 in Shepard), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the pressure vessel and coolant levels of Shepard for the pressure vessel and coolant levels of Wallinger according to known methods to yield the predictable results of using a coolant filled pressure vessel to cool electronic components in space. Doing so would have also enhanced the functionality of the apparatus, by allowing the apparatus to effectively operate and survive the harsh conditions associated with traveling into space (see Figures 1, 8, 11 and Paragraphs [0003]-[0014] in Wallinger).
Shepard in view of Wallinger does not teach wherein the forced liquid-flow generator is a contra-rotating fan, and wherein the contra-rotating fan comprises a first fan and a second fan which are stacked and fixed on a concentric axis and rotate in opposite directions.
However, Takemoto teaches wherein the forced liquid-flow generator is a contra-rotating fan, and wherein the contra-rotating fan (4) comprises a first fan (axial fan 2) and a second fan (axial fan 3) which are stacked and fixed on a concentric axis (axes J2, J3; see Paragraph [0024]) and rotate in opposite directions (see Paragraph [0028]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the fan of Shepard as modified by Wallinger for the contra-rotating fan of Takemoto, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of using a fan device to cool electronic components. Doing so would have also improved energy consumption and heat dissipation by providing an efficient fluid mover within the vessel (see Paragraphs [0006]-[0010] and [0030]-[0037] in Takemoto).
While Shepard as modified by Wallinger and Takemoto does not explicitly teach wherein the contra-rotating fan is capable of canceling out angular momentums in zero-gravity space environment, McNeil teaches a contra-rotating fan (Figures 1-2, comprised of fans 50, 70), wherein the contra-rotating fan (comprised of 50, 70) comprises a first fan (50) and a second fan (70) which are stacked and fixed on a concentric axis (see col. 6, ln. 1-20) and rotate in opposite directions (see col. 5, ln. 39-54) to cancel out angular momentums in zero-gravity space environment (see col. 4, ln. 35-51; col. 7, ln. 5-16).
Because the contra-rotating fans of Takemoto and McNeil are identical to the contra-rotating fan of the instant application, the contra-rotating fans of Shepard as modified by Wallinger and Takemoto are considered to be as capable of performing the function as the claimed invention, as taught in McNeil, absent any claimed structural difference. See MPEP § 2114 I & II, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function... A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus' if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” In the instant case, as evidenced by McNeil, because the contra-rotating fans of Takemoto are stacked and fixed on a concentric axis and rotate in opposite directions, the contra-rotating fans of Shepard as modified by Wallinger and Takemoto are capable of canceling out angular momentums in zero-gravity space environment.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the contra-rotating fans of Shepard as modified by Wallinger and Takemoto to cancel out angular momentums in zero-gravity space environment, as taught in McNeil. Doing so would have neutralized angular momentum/internal forces and would have provided inertial balance (see col. 4, ln. 35-51; col. 7, ln. 5-16 in McNeil).
Regarding claim 9, Shepard discloses a ruggedizing method for electronic equipment, comprising: immersing at least a heat-generating electronic circuit (switch 110) of the electronic equipment (electronic device 104) in a coolant (coolant C) of a pressure vessel (sealed housing 102) that is filled with the coolant (coolant C); and by a forced liquid-flow generator (actuated element 126) placed within the pressure vessel (102), forcedly flowing the coolant (coolant C) on the heat-generating electronic circuit (110) to move away from the heat-generating electronic circuit (110), wherein the forced liquid-flow generator (126) is a coolant C) to flow in a predetermined direction (toward 104),
wherein the forced liquid-flow generator (126) causes the coolant (coolant C) to flow in the predetermined direction (toward 104) perpendicular to a main surface of the heat-generating electronic circuit (top surface of 110).
Shepard does not disclose wherein the ruggedizing apparatus for electronic equipment is in a spacecraft mounted with the electronic equipment.
However, Wallinger teaches a ruggedizing apparatus (space vehicle 100) for electronic equipment (see Figure 2) in a spacecraft (rocket 1) mounted with the electronic equipment (see Figures 1-2), comprising: a pressure vessel (pressurized structure 101) including a single interior space (space within 101) filled with coolant (fluid 115; see Paragraphs [0052]-[0053]), and a fan (Figure 11, circulation device 116) within the pressure vessel (101).
Because the aerospace apparatuses of Wallinger and Shepard comprise similarly configured pressure vessels with immersed, electronic components mounted therein (see Figure 8 in Wallinger, and Paragraph [0002] and Figure 1 in Shepard), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the pressure vessel and coolant levels of Shepard for the pressure vessel and coolant levels of Wallinger according to known methods to yield the predictable results of using a coolant filled pressure vessel to cool electronic components in space. Doing so would have also enhanced the functionality of the apparatus, by allowing the apparatus to effectively operate and survive the harsh conditions associated with traveling into space (see Figures 1, 8, 11 and Paragraphs [0003]-[0014] in Wallinger).
Shepard in view of Wallinger does not teach wherein the forced liquid-flow generator is a contra-rotating fan, and wherein the contra-rotating fan comprises a first fan and a second fan which are stacked and fixed on a concentric axis and rotate in opposite directions.
However, Takemoto teaches wherein the forced liquid-flow generator is a contra-rotating fan, and wherein the contra-rotating fan (4) comprises a first fan (axial fan 2) and a second fan (axial fan 3) which are stacked and fixed on a concentric axis (axes J2, J3; see Paragraph [0024]) and rotate in opposite directions (see Paragraph [0028]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the fan of Shepard as modified by Wallinger for the contra-rotating fan of Takemoto, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of using a fan device to cool electronic components. Doing so would have also improved energy consumption and heat dissipation by providing an efficient fluid mover within the vessel (see Paragraphs [0006]-[0010] and [0030]-[0037] in Takemoto).
While Shepard as modified by Wallinger and Takemoto does not explicitly teach wherein the contra-rotating fan is capable of canceling out angular momentums in zero-gravity space environment, McNeil teaches a contra-rotating fan (Figures 1-2, comprised of fans 50, 70), wherein the contra-rotating fan (comprised of 50, 70) comprises a first fan (50) and a second fan (70) which are stacked and fixed on a concentric axis (see col. 6, ln. 1-20) and rotate in opposite directions (see col. 5, ln. 39-54) to cancel out angular momentums in zero-gravity space environment (see col. 4, ln. 35-51; col. 7, ln. 5-16).
Because the contra-rotating fans of Takemoto and McNeil are identical to the contra-rotating fan of the instant application, the contra-rotating fans of Shepard as modified by Wallinger and Takemoto are considered to be as capable of performing the function as the claimed invention, as taught in McNeil, absent any claimed structural difference. See MPEP § 2114 I & II, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function... A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus' if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” In the instant case, as evidenced by McNeil, because the contra-rotating fans of Takemoto are stacked and fixed on a concentric axis and rotate in opposite directions, the contra-rotating fans of Shepard as modified by Wallinger and Takemoto are capable of canceling out angular momentums in zero-gravity space environment.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the contra-rotating fans of Shepard as modified by Wallinger and Takemoto to cancel out angular momentums in zero-gravity space environment, as taught in McNeil. Doing so would have neutralized angular momentum/internal forces and would have provided inertial balance (see col. 4, ln. 35-51; col. 7, ln. 5-16 in McNeil).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GAGE STEPHEN CRUM whose telephone number is (571)272-3373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allen Parker can be reached at (303)297-4722. 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.
/GAGE CRUM/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
gsc