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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “fixation units 31” para. 0034 page 3 (PGPub) should read “fixation units 3”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 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:
“heat dissipation unit” in claim 1 & 6.
The aforementioned meets the three-prong test outlined here in since:
(A) the term “unit” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g.
“heat dissipation”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or
acts for performing the claimed function.
“adjustment unit” in claim 1, 2, & 8.
The aforementioned meets the three-prong test outlined here in since:
(A) the term “unit” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g.
“adjustment”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or
acts for performing the claimed function.
“fixation unit” in claim 1 & 5.
The aforementioned meets the three-prong test outlined here in since:
(A) the term “unit” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g.
“fixation”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or
acts for performing the claimed function.
“heatsink module” in claim 2, & 3.
The aforementioned meets the three-prong test outlined here in since:
(A) the term “module” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g.
“heatsink”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or
acts for performing the claimed function.
“guiding module” in claim 3.
The aforementioned meets the three-prong test outlined here in since:
(A) the term “module” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g.
“guiding”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or
acts for performing the claimed function.
“fixation component” in claim 6.
The aforementioned meets the three-prong test outlined here in since:
(A) the term “component” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g.
“fixation”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or
acts for performing the claimed function.
The heat dissipation unit in claims 2, and 3 are modified by sufficient structure for performing its claimed function.
The adjustment unit in claims 4, and 5 are modified by sufficient structure for performing its claimed function.
The fixation unit in claims 7, and 8 are modified by sufficient structure for performing its claimed function.
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.
Review of the specification found the following structure for the heat dissipation unit “comprises a base, a heatsink module and a contact portion” based on figure 4 para. 0007 & 0031 page 1 & 2 (PGPub).
Review of the drawings and specification found the following structure for the adjustment units “adjustment units are one or more openings/free spaces on the base” based on figure 4 para. 0009 to 0031 page 1 & 2 (PGPub).
Review of the drawings and specification found the following structure for the fixation unit “the alignment portion and first and second guide portions.” based on figure 4 para. 0013 page 1 (PGPub).
Review of the drawings and specification found the following structure for the heatsink module as a fins or equivalent based on figure 1.
Review of the drawings and specification found the following structure for the guiding module is a fan or equivalent structure based upon figure 10 and paragraph 0037 (PGPub).
Review of the drawings and specification found the following structure for the fixation component are screws or equivalent structures per figures 4-5 (PGPub).
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, & 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by YU et al. (US-12328846-B2).
Regarding claim 1, YU teaches A heat dissipation device (see YU fig. 3 annotated by Examiner, heat dissipation device HDD, columns 4 & 5 lines 66-67 & 1-2 states “The above-mentioned heat-exchanging member 2 can also be a metal casing of a predetermined electronic device, such as: an industrial computer case, or a metal casing of a server or a desktop computer host.” The heat dissipation device is part of an industrial computer case) for an industrial computer, the heat dissipation device comprising:
a heat dissipation unit (see YU fig. 2 & 3 annotated by Examiner, heat-exchanging member 2 includes B, HSM, and CP);
at least two adjustment units (see YU fig. 2, 3, & 7 annotated by Examiner, adjustment units AU includes 1FS, 2FS, 3FS, 4FS, 1PLP, and 2PLP (this can be broadly interpreted)) disposed on at least two sides of the heat dissipation unit; and
at least two fixation units (see YU fig. 4 annotated by Examiner, fixation units FU includes AP, 1GP, 2GP, and 3GP (this can be broadly interpreted)) movably disposed at the adjustment units.
PNG
media_image1.png
621
909
media_image1.png
Greyscale
YU’s fig. 3 annotated by Examiner
PNG
media_image2.png
895
1408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
YU’s fig. 4 annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 2, YU teaches the limitations of claim 1.
YU further teaches wherein the heat dissipation unit comprises a base (see YU fig. 3 annotated by Examiner, base B), a heatsink module (see YU fig. 3 annotated by Examiner, heat sink module HSM, shown on top surface of B) and a
contact portion (see YU fig. 2 annotated by Examiner, contact portion CP, shown on bottom surface of B), with the heatsink module disposed on a top surface of the base,
and the contact portion disposed on a bottom surface of the base, allowing the adjustment units to be disposed on lateral sides of the base (see YU fig. 3 annotated by Examiner).
PNG
media_image3.png
820
1330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
YU’s fig. 2 annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 4, YU teaches the limitations of claim 1.
YU further teaches wherein a first free space (see YU fig. 3 annotated by Examiner, first fee space 1FS, shown centrally disposed at each adjustment unit) is centrally disposed at each of the adjustment units,
with a second free space (see YU fig. 2 annotated by Examiner, second free space 2FS, shown on each adjustment unit AU) and a third free space (see YU fig. 2 annotated by Examiner, third free space 3FS, shown on each adjustment unit AU) disposed on two sides of each of
the adjustment units, with a first position-limiting portion (see YU fig. 7 annotated by Examiner, first position limiting portion 1PLP, shown on each top surface of the adjustment units AU) disposed on a top
surface of each of the adjustment units, with a second position-limiting portion (see YU fig. 7 annotated by Examiner, second position limiting portion 2PLP, shown on each surface below the adjustment units AU)
disposed on a bottom surface of each of the adjustment units, with a fourth free
space (see YU fig. 7 annotated by Examiner, fourth free space 4FS, the fourth free space is shown above 2PLP) disposed at each of the second position-limiting portions, allowing the
first free space, the second free space, the third free space, and the fourth free
space of each of the adjustment units to be in communication with each other (see YU fig. 3 annotated by examiner, movement position limited 1FS, 2FS, 3FS, and 4FS).
PNG
media_image4.png
561
778
media_image4.png
Greyscale
YU’s fig. 7 annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 5, YU teaches the limitations of claim 4.
YU further teaches wherein each of the fixation units (see YU fig. 4 annotated by Examiner, fixation units FU includes AP, 1GP, 2GP, and 3GP (this can be broadly interpreted), FU shown disposed in 1FS) is movably disposed in the first free space (see YU fig. 3 annotated by Examiner, first free space 1FS), the
second free space (see YU fig. 2 annotated by Examiner, second free space 2FS), the third free space (see YU fig. 2 annotated by Examiner, third free space 3FS), and the fourth free space (see YU fig. 7 annotated by Examiner, fourth free space 4FS) of a
corresponding one of the adjustment units.
Regarding claim 6, YU teaches the limitations of claim 4.
YU further teaches wherein the second position-limiting portions (see YU fig. 7 annotated by Examiner, second position limiting portion 2PLP, shown on each AU with a MP) each have a mounting portion (see YU fig. 7 annotated by Examiner, mounting portion MP), and
the mounting portions are coupled to a bottom surface of the heat dissipation
unit through a plurality of fixation components (see YU fig. 2 annotated by Examiner, fixation components FC).
Regarding claim 7, YU teaches the limitations of claim 1.
YU further teaches wherein an alignment portion (see YU fig. 4 annotated by Examiner, alignment portion AP, the arrow of the AP centrally disposed at 1GP, and 2GP at the FU) is centrally disposed at each of the fixation units (see YU fig. 4 annotated by Examiner, fixation units FU includes AP, 1GP, 2GP, and 3GP (this can be broadly interpreted)),
with a first guiding portion (see YU fig. 4 annotated by Examiner, first guiding portion 1GP) and a second guiding portion (see YU fig. 4 annotated by Examiner, second guiding portion 2GP) disposed on two sides
of each of the fixation units, and with a third guiding portion (see YU fig. 4 annotated by Examiner, third guiding portion 3GP) disposed on a
bottom surface of each of the fixation units (see YU fig. 4 annotated by Examiner).
Regarding claim 8, YU teaches the limitations of claim 7.
YU further teaches wherein the alignment portion (see YU fig. 4 annotated by Examiner, alignment portion AP) of each of the fixation units (see YU fig. 4 annotated by Examiner, fixation units FU includes AP, 1GP, 2GP, and 3GP (this can be broadly interpreted), the arrow of the FU is centrally disposed between the AU and the GP1, and GP2) is centrally disposed
at a corresponding one of the adjustment units, and the first and second guiding portions (see YU fig. 4 annotated by Examiner, first guiding portion GP1, second guiding portion 2GP) of each of the fixation units are disposed on two sides of a
corresponding one of the adjustment units, allowing the third guiding portion (see YU fig. 4 annotated by Examiner, third guiding portion 3GP) of
each of the fixation units to be disposed on a bottom surface of a corresponding
one of the adjustment units (see YU fig. 3 annotated by examiner).
Regarding claim 9, YU teaches the limitations of claim 7.
YU further teaches wherein the alignment portions (see YU fig. 4 annotated by Examiner, alignment portion AP) each have a plurality of corresponding fastening holes (see YU fig. 2 annotated by Examiner, fastening holes FH).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YU et al. (US-12328846-B2) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Jordan et al. (US-5486980-A).
Regarding claim 3, YU teaches wherein the heat dissipation unit (see YU fig. 2 & 3 annotated by Examiner, heat-exchanging member 2 includes B, HSM, and CP) comprises a base (see YU fig. 3 annotated by Examiner, base B), a heatsink module (see YU fig. 3 annotated by Examiner, heat sink module HSM, shown on top surface of B), a contact
portion (see YU fig. 2 annotated by Examiner, contact portion CP, shown on bottom surface of B), a fitting portion, and a guiding module, with the heatsink module
disposed on a top surface of the base, the contact portion disposed on a bottom surface of the base.
YU does not teach the fitting portion disposed at the heatsink module, the
guiding module coupled to the fitting portion and disposed on a top surface of
the heatsink module, allowing the adjustment units to be disposed on lateral sides
of the base.
Jordan teaches
a heat dissipation unit (see Abstract);
the fitting portion (see Jordan fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, fitting portion FP, column 4 line 27-30 states “rotary fan 11 is mechanically affixed to heat sink body 10 with screws 23 and aligned to deliver air axially with respect to the pins 14 centrally located on the face of the heat sink” FP coupled to the guiding module) disposed at the heatsink module, the
guiding module (see Jordan fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, guiding module GM, GM shown on top surface of HM) coupled to the fitting portion and disposed on a top surface of
the heatsink module, allowing the adjustment units to be disposed on lateral sides
of the base (see Jordan fig. 1 annotated by Examiner).
PNG
media_image5.png
717
966
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Jordan’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner
It would, therefore be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the heat dissipation unit of YU to have a fitting portion, and a guiding module, the fitting portion disposed at the heatsink module, the guiding module coupled to the fitting portion and disposed on a top surface of the heatsink module, as taught by Jordan, such modification would provide more efficient transfer of thermal energy to cooling air from the heatsink module by directing air over the pins (see Jordan column 5 line 27-30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY FRANCIS CANOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-5795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/HENRY FRANCIS CANOVA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights