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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-11, 13-18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-11, 13-18, and 20, contain the word “Claim”, in line 1 respectively, written with upper case “C”. Appropriate correction is required from “Claim” to “claim”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 recites the word “of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 recites the word “of”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 16 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the low thermal conductivity material" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and created confusion if claim 16 depends on claim 12, or whether it depends on claim 15. For the purpose of examination, the office will interpret claim 16 as being dependent on claim 15.
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 1-4, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeger et al (US 6980418; “Seeger” hereinafter), in view of Lau et al (US 20230345614 “Lau” hereinafter), Long (US 20200174533; “Long” hereinafter), and further in view of Elenitoba-Johnson et al (US 20200137896; “Elen” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Seeger discloses: an electronic storage device comprising:
an enclosure (30, fig. 3) comprising:
a top enclosure part (annotated as ‘TEP’ in annotated fig. 3 below , fig. 3) comprising a top enclosing structure (31, fig. 3), and
a bottom enclosure part (annotated as ‘BEP’ in annotated fig. 3 below, fig. 3), and comprising a bottom enclosing structure (32, fig. 3); and
a printed circuit board (PCB) housed in the enclosure (33, fig. 3, col. 3, lines 53-56);
wherein at least one of the top and bottom enclosure parts comprises a thermal conduction inhibitor (35 and 36, col. 4, lines 6-8) interposed in the respective top or bottom enclosing structure and disposed on an electronic component (34, fig. 3) of the PCB.
PNG
media_image1.png
263
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Seeger does not explicitly disclose:
the top enclosure part coupling with the bottom enclosing part.
the PCB comprising a relatively high-temperature electronic component, and a relatively low-temperature electronic component of the PCB.
a thermal conduction inhibitor interposed in the respective top or bottom enclosing structure and positioned between electronic component of the PCB
However, Lau discloses:
an enclosure comprising a top enclosure part (104, fig. 3) coupling with a bottom enclosing part (102, fig. 3, ¶[0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Lau’s teaching into Seeger, such that the top enclosure part couples with the bottom enclosing part, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique of two part housing enclosing a PCB, was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Lau. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Seeger in view of Lau does not explicitly teach:
the PCB comprising a relatively high-temperature electronic component, and a relatively low-temperature electronic component of the PCB,
a thermal conduction inhibitor interposed in the respective top or bottom enclosing structure and positioned between electronic component of the PCB
However, Long discloses:
a solid-state drive storage device (fig. 1) comprising a PCB (130, fig. 2) comprising a relatively high-temperature electronic component (134, and 136, fig. 2, ¶[0030]), and a relatively low-temperature electronic component (132, fig. 2, ¶ [0028]) of the PCB.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Long’s solid-state drive storage device, into Seeger electronic storage device, such that the PCB comprising a relatively high-temperature electronic component, and a relatively low-temperature electronic component of the PCB, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique of diverse electrical component mounted on a PCB was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Long. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Seeger in view of Lao and Long does not explicitly disclose:
a thermal conduction inhibitor interposed in the respective top or bottom enclosing structure and positioned between electronic component of the PCB.
However, Elen teaches:
a thermal conduction inhibitor (Mylar insulation, fig. 4B) positioned between electronic components (see annotated fig. 4B below) of a PCB (M.2Board, fig. 4B).
PNG
media_image2.png
459
593
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Elen’s teaching into Seeger in view of Lau and Long, such that, such that the thermal conduction inhibitor is interposed in the respective top or bottom enclosing structure and positioned between a relatively high-temperature electronic component of the PCB and a relatively low-temperature electronic component of the PCB, in order to inhibit heat between electronic components adjacent to one another, and thus improve the thermal performance of the electrical components. The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (heat transfer / regulation principles) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Elen. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques among a plurality of heat transfer techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, Seeger in view of Lau, Long and Elen teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Seeger further teaches: wherein each of the top and bottom enclosure parts comprises a respective thermal conduction inhibitor (35 and 36, col. 4, lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 3, Seeger in view of Lau, Long and Elen teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Long further teaches: wherein:
the relatively high-temperature electronic component includes a controller integrated circuit component (134 is labelled ASIC, fig. 2, ¶[0028]); and
the relatively low-temperature electronic component includes of one or more solid-state memory component (132, ¶[0029]).
Regarding claim 4, Seeger in view of, Lau, Long and Elen teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Long further teaches:
the relatively high-temperature electronic component includes of a power management integrated circuit component (136, fig. 2, ¶[0028]); and
the relatively low-temperature electronic component includes of one or more solid-state memory component (132, ¶[0029]).
Regarding claim 11, Seeger in view of Lau, Long and Elen teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and the combination further teaches: wherein the electronic storage device is a solid-state drive (SSD) storage device (fig. 1, ¶[0022]-[0024], Long).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeger et al (US 6980418; “Seeger” hereinafter), in view of Lau et al (US 20230345614 “Lau” hereinafter), Long (US 20200174533; “Long” hereinafter), , Elen (US 20200137896; “Elen” hereinafter), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wang et al (US 20210378135; “Wang” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 5, Seeger in view of Lau, Long and Elen teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the thermal conduction inhibitor comprises a through-hole through the respective top or bottom enclosing structure of the at least one top and bottom enclosure parts.
However, Wang discloses:
a thermal conduction inhibitor (500, unlabeled in fig. 7a, but disclosed in ¶[0034]) comprises a through-hole (130, fig. 5, ¶[0034]) through a cover (100, fig. 7a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Wang’s teaching into Seeger in view of Lau, Long and Elen such that the thermal conduction inhibitor comprises a through-hole through the respective top or bottom enclosing structure of the at least one top and bottom enclosure parts, in order to prevent heat transfer from adjacent heat generating electronic components affecting each other (¶[0032]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeger et al (US 6980418; “Seeger” hereinafter), in view of Lau et al (US 20230345614 “Lau” hereinafter), Long (US 20200174533; “Long” hereinafter), Elen (US 20200137896; “Elen” hereinafter), Wang et al (US 20210378135; “Wang” hereinafter) as applied to claim 5, and further in view of embodiment of fig. 7C of Wang et al (US 20210378135; “Wang2” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, Seeger in view of Lau, Long, Elen and Wang teaches the limitations of Claim 5, but does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising:
a low thermal conductivity material disposed within the through-hole;
wherein the thermal conductivity of the low thermal conductivity material is less than the thermal conductivity of a material of which the respective top and bottom enclosing structure is composed.
However, Wang2 teaches:
a low thermal conductivity material (500, fig. 7c) disposed within a through-hole (130, fig. 5), extending through an enclosure (100, fig. 7c), wherein the thermal conductivity of the low thermal conductivity material is less than the thermal conductivity of a material of which the enclosing structure is composed (100 is composed of steel, ¶[0024], ¶[0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Wang2’s teaching into Seeger in view of Lau, Long, Elen and Wang such that a low thermal conductivity material disposed within the through-hole; wherein the thermal conductivity of the low thermal conductivity material is less than the thermal conductivity of a material of which the respective top and bottom enclosing structure is composed, in order to enhance heat transfer performance of the thermal conduction inhibitor (¶[0032]-[0034]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeger et al (US 6980418; “Seeger” hereinafter), in view of Lau et al (US 20230345614 “Lau” hereinafter), Long (US 20200174533; “Long” hereinafter), Elen (US 20200137896; “Elen” hereinafter), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wang et al (US 20210378135; “Wang” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 7, Seeger in view of Lau, Long and Elen teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the thermal conduction inhibitor comprises a recessed portion extending through a portion of the respective top or bottom enclosing structure of the at least one top and bottom enclosure parts.
However, Wang discloses:
a thermal conduction inhibitor (500, fig. 9, ¶[0034]) comprises a recessed portion (where 500 is disposed in fig. 9) through a housing (110 and 220, i.e. enclosure part, fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Wang’s teaching into Seeger in view of Lau, Long and Elen such that the thermal conduction inhibitor comprises a through-hole through the respective top or bottom enclosing structure of the at least one top and bottom enclosure parts, in order to prevent heat transfer from adjacent heat generating electronic components affecting each other (¶[0032]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeger et al (US 6980418; “Seeger” hereinafter), in view of Lau et al (US 20230345614 “Lau” hereinafter), Long (US 20200174533; “Long” hereinafter), Elen (US 20200137896; “Elen” hereinafter), Wang et al (US 20210378135; “Wang” hereinafter), as applied to claim 7, and further in view of further in view of embodiment of figs. 4-5 of Seeger et al (US 6980418; “Seeger2” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Seeger in view of Lau, Long, Elen, and Wang teaches the limitations of Claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising:
a low thermal conductivity material embedded within the recessed portion;
wherein the thermal conductivity of the low thermal conductivity material is less than the thermal conductivity of a material of which the respective top and bottom enclosing structure is composed.
However, Seeger2 teaches:
a low thermal conductivity material (46’, fig. 5), wherein the thermal conductivity of the low thermal conductivity material (aluminized PET film, col. 4, lines 32-33) is less than the thermal conductivity of a material (titanium, col. 5, lines 12-13) of which an enclosure (40) is composed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine apply Seeger2’s teaching into Seeger’s modified electronic storage device, such that a low thermal conductivity material embedded within the recessed portion;
wherein the thermal conductivity of the low thermal conductivity material is less than the thermal conductivity of a material of which the respective top and bottom enclosing structure is composed, in order to reduce the external temperature of the enclosure (col. 2; lines 41-54). The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (heat transfer / regulation principles) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Seeger2. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeger et al (US 6980418; “Seeger” hereinafter), in view of Lau et al (US 20230345614 “Lau” hereinafter), Long (US 20200174533; “Long” hereinafter), Elen (US 20200137896; “Elen” hereinafter), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Liao et al (US 20150241933; “Liao” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 9, Seeger in view of Lau Long and Elen teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the thermal conduction inhibitor comprises a grouping of slits through the respective top or bottom enclosing structure of the at least one top and bottom enclosure parts.
However, Liao teaches:
an enclosure (151, figs. 2-3) comprising a grouping of slits (159, fig. 3), to regulate heat from a heat conductive pad (155, i.e. thermal conduction inhibitor, fig. 3, ¶[0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine apply Liao’s teaching into Seeger in view of Lau, Long and Elen such that the thermal conduction inhibitor comprises a grouping of slits through the respective top or bottom enclosing structure of the at least one top and bottom enclosure parts. in order to enhance heat transfer performance of the thermal conduction inhibitor (¶[0018]). The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (heat transfer / regulation principles) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Liao. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeger et al (US 6980418; “Seeger” hereinafter), in view of Lau et al (US 20230345614 “Lau” hereinafter), Long (US 20200174533; “Long” hereinafter), Elen (US 20200137896; “Elen” hereinafter), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Nakashima (CN 109196967A; “Nakashima” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 10, Seeger in view of Lau, Long and Elen teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the thermal conduction inhibitor comprises a grouping of holes through the respective top or bottom enclosing structure of the at least one top and bottom enclosure parts.
However, Nakashima discloses:
PNG
media_image3.png
647
470
media_image3.png
Greyscale
an enclosure (see annotated fig. 3A below) comprising a grouping of holes (0314, fig. 3A), to regulate heat of a heat generating electronic component (0322, fig. 3A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine apply Nakashima’s teaching into Seeger in view of Lau, Long and Elen such that the thermal conduction inhibitor comprises a grouping of holes through the respective top or bottom enclosing structure of the at least one top and bottom enclosure parts, in order to enhance heat transfer performance of the thermal conduction inhibitor (¶[0084]). The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (heat transfer / regulation principles) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Nakashima. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US 20200174533; “Long” hereinafter), in view of Seeger et al (US 6980418; “Seeger” hereinafter), Lau et al (US 20230345614 “Lau” hereinafter), Wang et al (US 20210378135; “Wang” hereinafter), and further in view of Elen (US 20200137896; “Elen” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 12, Long teaches: a solid-state storage device enclosure (102, fig. 1), in which a printed circuit board (PCB) (120, fig. 2) comprising electronic means for non-volatile data storage is housed (132, fig. 2, ¶[0028]-[0029]), the enclosure comprising:
a relatively high-temperature electronic component (134, and 136, fig. 2, ¶[0030]) and a relatively low-temperature electronic component (132, fig. 2) disposed on the PCB.
Long does not explicitly disclose:
a first enclosure part comprising a first enclosing structure; and
a second enclosure part coupled with the first enclosure part and comprising a second enclosing structure;
wherein at least one of the first and second enclosure parts comprises a thermal conduction inhibitor integral to the respective first or second enclosing structure and positioned for interposition between a relatively high-temperature electronic component of a PCB and a relatively low-temperature electronic component of the PCB.
However, Seeger teaches:
a housing (30, fig. 3) comprising a first enclosure part (31, 35, fig. 3) comprising a first enclosing structure (31, fig. 3); and
a second enclosure part (32, 36, fig. 3) comprising a second enclosing structure (31, fig. 3);
wherein at least one of the first and second enclosure parts comprises a thermal conduction inhibitor (35 and 36, col. 4, lines 6-8) respective to the first or second enclosing structure and disposed on electronic components (34, fig. 1) of a PCB (33, FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Long’s solid-state drive storage device, with Seeger’s first and second enclosure part electronic storage device, such that the PCB comprises a relatively high-temperature electronic component, and a relatively low-temperature electronic component of the PCB, as claimed, in order to reduce external heating of the enclosure by the electronic components contained therein (see Abstract).
Long in view of Seeger does not explicitly disclose:
the top enclosure part coupling with the bottom enclosing part.
the thermal conduction inhibitor integral to the respective first or second enclosing structure’
a thermal conduction inhibitor positioned for interposition between a relatively high-temperature electronic component and a relatively low-temperature electronic component of the PCB.
However, Lau discloses:
an enclosure comprising a top enclosure part (104, fig. 3) coupling with a bottom enclosing part (102, fig. 3, ¶[0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Lau’s teaching into Long in view of Seeger, such that the top enclosure part couples with the bottom enclosing part, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique of two part housing enclosing a PCB, was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Lau. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Long in view of Seeger and Lau does not explicitly disclose:
the thermal conduction inhibitor integral to the respective first or second enclosing structure’
a thermal conduction inhibitor positioned for interposition between a relatively high-temperature electronic component and a relatively low-temperature electronic component of the PCB.
However, Wang discloses:
a thermal inhibitor (210, fig. 5) integral to a housing (100 and 200, fig. 5, ¶[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Wang’s teaching into Long in view of Seeger and Lau, such that the thermal conduction inhibitor is integral to the respective first or second enclosing structure, in order to prevent heat transfer from adjacent heat generating electronic components affecting each other (¶[0032]). Furthermore, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Long in view of Seeger, Lau and Wang does not explicitly disclose:
a thermal conduction inhibitor positioned for interposition between a relatively high-temperature electronic component and a relatively low-temperature electronic component of the PCB.
However, Elen teaches:
a thermal conduction inhibitor (Mylar insulation, fig. 4B) positioned between electronic components (see annotated fig. 4B below) of a PCB (M.2Board, fig. 4B).
PNG
media_image2.png
459
593
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Elen’s teaching into Seeger in view of Lau and Long, such that, such that the thermal conduction inhibitor is interposed in the respective top or bottom enclosing structure and positioned between a relatively high-temperature electronic component of the PCB and a relatively low-temperature electronic component of the PCB, in order to inhibit heat between electronic components adjacent to one another, and thus improve the thermal performance of the electrical components. The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (heat transfer / regulation principles) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Elen. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 13, Long in view of Seeger, Lau Wang and Elen teaches the limitation of claim 12, and Seeger further teaches:
wherein each of the first and second enclosure parts comprises a respective thermal conduction inhibitor (see fig. 3).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US 20200174533; “Long” hereinafter), in view of Seeger et al (US 6980418; “Seeger” hereinafter), Lau et al (US 20230345614 “Lau” hereinafter), (US 20210378135; “Wang” hereinafter), and further in view of Elen (US 20200137896; “Elen” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 14, Long in view of Seeger, Lau, Wang and Elen teaches the limitation of claim 12, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the thermal conduction inhibitor comprises a through-hole through, and/or a recessed portion extending through a portion of, the respective top or bottom enclosing structure of the at least one top and bottom enclosure parts.
However, Wang discloses:
a thermal conduction inhibitor (210, fig. 5) comprises a recessed portion, or hole (130, fig. 5) through a housing (100, i.e. enclosure part, fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Wang’s teaching into Long in view of Seeger, Lau and Elen such that the thermal conduction inhibitor comprises a through-hole through, and/or a recessed portion extending through a portion of, the respective top or bottom enclosing structure of the at least one top and bottom enclosure parts, in order to prevent heat transfer from adjacent heat generating electronic components affecting each other (¶[0032]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US 20200174533; “Long” hereinafter), in view of Seeger et al (US 6980418; “Seeger” hereinafter), Lau et al (US 20230345614 “Lau” hereinafter), Wang et al (US 20210378135; “Wang” hereinafter), Elen (US 20200137896; “Elen” hereinafter), as applied to claim 14, and further in view of embodiment of figs. 4-5 of Seeger et al (US 6980418; “Seeger2” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 15, Long in view of Seeger, Lau and Wang teaches the limitation of claim 14, but does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising:
a low thermal conductivity material disposed within the through-hole and/or recessed portion;
wherein the thermal conductivity of the low thermal conductivity material is less than the thermal conductivity of a material of which the respective top and bottom enclosing structure is composed.
However, Seeger2 teaches:
a low thermal conductivity material (46’, fig. 5), wherein the thermal conductivity of the low thermal conductivity material (aluminized PET film, col. 4, lines 32-33) is less than the thermal conductivity of a material (titanium, col. 5, lines 12-13) of which the housing (40) is composed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Seeger2’s teaching into Long in view of Seeger, Lau, Wang and Elen such that a low thermal conductivity material is disposed within the through-hole and/or recessed portion; wherein the thermal conductivity of the low thermal conductivity material is less than the thermal conductivity of a material of which the respective top and bottom enclosing structure is composed, in order to reduce the external temperature of the enclosure (col. 2; lines 41-54). The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (heat transfer / regulation principles) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Seeger2. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US 20200174533; “Long” hereinafter), in view of Seeger et al (US 6980418; “Seeger” hereinafter), Lau et al (US 20230345614 “Lau” hereinafter), Wang et al (US 20210378135; “Wang” hereinafter), Elen (US 20200137896; “Elen” hereinafter), as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Rugg (US 20150208550; “Rugg” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 16 (as best understood), Long in view of Seeger, Lau, Wang and Elen teaches the limitation of claim 12, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the low thermal conductivity material is composed of a plastic or a stainless steel (¶[0036]).
However, Rugg discloses:
a thermal barrier (146, 172, figs. 4-5, i.e. low thermal conductivity material) is composed of a plastic or a stainless steel (¶[0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Rugg’s teaching into Long in view of Seeger, Lau, Wang and Elen such that the low thermal conductivity material is composed of a plastic or a stainless steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice (MPEP 2144.07).
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US 20200174533; “Long” hereinafter), in view of Seeger et al (US 6980418; “Seeger” hereinafter), Lau et al (US 20230345614 “Lau” hereinafter), Wang et al (US 20210378135; “Wang” hereinafter), Elen (US 20200137896; “Elen” hereinafter), as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Liao et al (US 20150241933; “Liao” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 17, Long in view of Seeger, Lau, Wang and Elen teaches the limitation of claim 12, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the thermal conduction inhibitor comprises a grouping of slits through the respective top or bottom enclosing structure of the at least one top and bottom enclosure parts.
However, Liao teaches:
an enclosure (151, figs. 2-3) comprising a grouping of slits (159, fig. 3), to regulate heat from a heat conductive pad (155, i.e. thermal conduction inhibitor, fig. 3, ¶[0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Liao’s teaching into Long in view of Seeger, Lau, Wang and Elen such that the thermal conduction inhibitor comprises a grouping of slits through the respective top or bottom enclosing structure of the at least one top and bottom enclosure parts. in order to enhance heat transfer performance of the thermal conduction inhibitor (¶[0018]). The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (heat transfer / regulation principles) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Liao. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US 20200174533; “Long” hereinafter), in view of Seeger et al (US 6980418; “Seeger” hereinafter), Lau et al (US 20230345614 “Lau” hereinafter), Wang et al (US 20210378135; “Wang” hereinafter), Elen (US 20200137896; “Elen” hereinafter), as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Nakashima (CN 109196967A; “Nakashima” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 18, Long in view of Seeger, Lau, Wang and Elen teaches the limitation of claim 12, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the thermal conduction inhibitor comprises a grouping of holes through the respective top or bottom enclosing structure of the at least one top and bottom enclosure parts.
However, Nakashima discloses:
PNG
media_image3.png
647
470
media_image3.png
Greyscale
an enclosure (see annotated fig. 3A below) comprising a grouping of holes (0314, fig. 3A), to regulate heat of a heat generating electronic component (0322, fig. 3A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Nakashima’s teaching into Long in view of Seeger, Lau, Wang and Elen such that the thermal conduction inhibitor comprises a grouping of holes through the respective top or bottom enclosing structure of the at least one top and bottom enclosure parts, in order to enhance heat transfer performance of the thermal conduction inhibitor (¶[0084]). The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (heat transfer / regulation principles) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Nakashima. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al (US 20230345614; “Lau” hereinafter), in view of Rugg (US 20150208550; “Rugg” hereinafter), and further in view of Wang et al (US 20210378135; “Wang” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 19, Lau discloses: a method of assembling solid-state data storage device, the method comprising:
coupling a printed circuit board (PCB) (130, fig. 1) comprising a relatively high-temperature electronic means for controlling (IC1, fig. 1, ¶[0023]-[0025]) and a relatively low-temperature electronic means for non-volatile data storage (IC2-IC3, fig. 1, ¶[0023]-[0025]) to an enclosure comprising a first enclosing structure (104, ¶[0019]) and a second enclosing structure (102, ¶[0019]);
Lau does not explicitly disclose:
wherein at least one of the first and second enclosing structures comprises an integral thermal conduction inhibitor positioned between and not over the relatively high-temperature electronic means for controlling and the relatively low-temperature electronic means for non-volatile data storage.
However, Rugg teaches:
a thermal conduction inhibitor (172, fig. 5) positioned between and not over a first heat source electronic means (162, fig. 5) and a second heat source electronic means (164, fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Rugg’s teaching into Lau, so that at least one of the first and second enclosing structures comprises a thermal conduction inhibitor positioned between and not over the relatively high-temperature electronic means for controlling and the relatively low-temperature electronic means for non-volatile data storage, as claimed, in order to thermally Isolate the relatively low-temperature electronic component and a high-temperature electronic component (¶[0038]-[0040]).
Lau in view of Rugg does not explicitly disclose:
the thermal conduction inhibitor being integral with at least one of the first and second enclosing structures.
However, Wang discloses:
a thermal inhibitor (210, fig. 5) integral to a housing (100 and 200, fig, 5. ¶[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Wang’s teaching into Lau in view of Rugg, such that the thermal conduction inhibitor is integral to the respective first or second enclosing structure, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al (US 20230345614; “Lau” hereinafter), in view of Rugg (US 20150208550; “Rugg” hereinafter), Wang et al (US 20210378135; “Wang” hereinafter) as applied to claim 19, and further in view of embodiment of fig. 7C of Wang et al (US 20210378135; “Wang2” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 20, Lau in view of Rugg and Wang teaches the limitations of Claim 19, but does not explicitly disclose:
a respective through-hole through, and/or a recessed portion extending through a portion of, the respective first and second enclosing structure, and
a low thermal conductivity material disposed within the through-hole and/or recessed portion, wherein the thermal conductivity of the low thermal conductivity material is less than the thermal conductivity of a material of which the respective first and second enclosing structure is composed.
However, Wang2 discloses:
a low thermal conductivity material (500, fig. 7c) comprises through-hole (130, fig. 5), extending through an enclosure (100, fig. 7c), wherein the thermal conductivity of the low thermal conductivity material is less than the thermal conductivity of a material of which the enclosing structure is composed (100 is composed of steel, ¶[0024], ¶[0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Wang2’s teaching into Long in view of Seeger, Elen and Wang such that a respective through-hole through, and/or a recessed portion extending through a portion of, the respective first and second enclosing structure, and a low thermal conductivity material disposed within the through-hole and/or recessed portion, wherein the thermal conductivity of the low thermal conductivity material is less than the thermal conductivity of a material of which the respective first and second enclosing structure is composed, in order to enhance heat transfer performance of the thermal conduction inhibitor (¶[0032]-[0034]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is:
US 20240386917 A1 System and Method for Modular Hard Drive Enclosure with Device Cooling. This invention relates generally to systems and methods for thermal management of devices in data processing systems.
US 20210161039 A1 Electronic Device Including Heat Radiating Structure. This invention generally relates to heat radiating structures that shield off electromagnetic waves from electric components in an electronic device or electronic devices including the same.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KRIM whose telephone number is (703)756-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am -4:30pm.
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 L 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.
/P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/SAGAR SHRESTHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841