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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the use of solid gray shading reduces legibility and does not adequately contrast with the rest of the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.84(m).
Additionally, the drawings will not reproduce well due to the shading and the character of the lines. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. See 37 CFR 1.84(l).
(l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
(m) Shading. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. See paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5 and 14 recite “the second the exhaust outlet” instead of “the second exhaust outlet”. 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.
Claims 2 and 11 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 2 recites “wherein when the top panel is in a closed position relative to the chassis, the exhaust outlet to receive the exhaust airflow and the exhaust intake to redirect the exhaust airflow away from the chassis and the top panel”, which is ungrammatical and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is being claimed.
Claim 11 recites “wherein in response to a rotation of the top panel relative to the chassis, the exhaust outlet to receive the exhaust airflow and the exhaust intake to redirect the exhaust airflow away from the chassis and the top panel”, which is ungrammatical and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is being claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 10-12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumhyr (US 20080089023 A1).
As to claim 1, Kumhyr discloses:
A hinge barrel air duct 412, 512 (Fig. 1-5) for an information handling system having a chassis and a top panel pivotally connected thereto by a hinge assembly, the hinge barrel air duct comprising:
an elongated body 412, 512 configured to be positioned adjacent to the top panel;
an exhaust intake 418, 518 formed in a first region of the elongated body, wherein the exhaust intake receives exhaust airflow expelled from the chassis; and
an exhaust outlet (where 412, 512 joins 410, 510) formed in a second region of the elongated body, wherein the exhaust outlet redirects exhaust airflow away from the chassis.
As to claim 2 (as best understood), Kumhyr discloses:
wherein when the top panel is in a closed position relative to the chassis, the exhaust outlet to receive the exhaust airflow and the exhaust intake to redirect the exhaust airflow away from the chassis and the top panel (in the closed position the exhaust outlet and exhaust intake will still form an airflow loop as in Fig. 4-5).
As to claim 3, Kumhyr discloses:
wherein the exhaust outlet comprises a first exhaust outlet, and the hinge barrel air duct further includes a second exhaust outlet (three distinct exhaust outlets joining to 510 in Fig. 5) formed in a third region of the elongated body.
As to claim 7, Kumhyr discloses:
wherein the exhaust intake 418, 518 is formed by a vent positioned substantially along a path of the exhaust airflow drawn by a fan 408, 508 through a heat sink (on top of 406, 506) enclosed within the chassis and outward from the chassis.
As to claim 10, Kumhyr discloses:
An information handling system (IHS) having a clamshell form factor (Fig. 1-5), the IHS comprising:
a chassis (see Figures), the chassis including:
a processor (Fig. 2); and
a memory operatively coupled with the processor (Fig. 2);
a top panel having embedded therein a display 104, 404, 504 operatively coupled with the processor and memory (see par. 0014-0015), wherein the top panel and the chassis are pivotally connected by a hinge assembly (above 412, 512); and
a hinge barrel air duct 412, 512 including:
an elongated body 412, 512 configured to be positioned adjacent to the top panel;
an exhaust intake 418, 518 formed in a first region of the elongated body, wherein the exhaust intake receives exhaust airflow expelled from the chassis; and
an exhaust outlet (where 412, 512 joins 410, 510) formed in a second region of the elongated body, wherein the exhaust outlet redirects the exhaust airflow away from the chassis.
As to claim 11 (as best understood), Kumhyr discloses:
wherein in response to a rotation of the top panel relative to the chassis, the exhaust outlet to receive the exhaust airflow and the exhaust intake to redirect the exhaust airflow away from the chassis and the top panel (device operates as in Fig. 4-5 after rotation of top panel).
As to claim 12, Kumhyr discloses:
wherein the exhaust outlet comprises a first exhaust outlet, and the hinge barrel air duct further includes a second exhaust outlet (three distinct exhaust outlets joining to 510 in Fig. 5) formed in a third region of the elongated body.
As to claim 16, Kumhyr discloses:
wherein the exhaust intake 418, 518 is formed by a vent positioned substantially along a path of the exhaust airflow drawn by a fan 408, 508 through a heat sink (on top of 406, 506) enclosed within the chassis and outward from the chassis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumhyr (US 20080089023 A1) alone as applied to claims 1 and 10 above.
As to claims 8 and 17, Kumhyr does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the exhaust intake is formed by a plurality of vents, each of the plurality of vents positioned substantially along a path of the exhaust airflow out of the chassis from one of a plurality of fan-and-heat sink combinations enclosed within the chassis.
However, Kumhyr discloses multiple fans (par. 0028), “a heat sink that sits on top of central processing unit 506 as well as other internal components of system unit 502”, and multiple chimney exhaust paths 510 to exhaust the heated air from the top panel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kumhyr by duplication of parts, e.g., providing:
wherein the exhaust intake is formed by a plurality of vents, each of the plurality of vents positioned substantially along a path of the exhaust airflow out of the chassis from one of a plurality of fan-and-heat sink combinations enclosed within the chassis;
in order to provide increased heat dissipation (via additional fan-and-heat sink combinations for the other internal components) and provide multiple exhaust paths for the internal components from the chassis.
Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device (e.g., fan and heat sink combinations and corresponding vents) involves only routine skill in the art. In re St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Additionally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumhyr (US 20080089023 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Guterman (US 20150255851 A1).
As to claims 9 and 18, Kumhyr discloses:
wherein the elongated body 412, 512 includes an internal cavity.
Kumhyr does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the elongated body includes an internal cavity to receive therein a hinge pin that extends from the hinge assembly.
However, Guterman discloses:
wherein the elongated body 60 (par. 0034-0037; Fig. 3-4) includes an internal cavity (of clutch barrel 60) to receive therein a hinge pin 56 that extends from the hinge assembly;
in order to rotatably couple the top panel 12A to the chassis 12B (par. 0034-0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kumhyr as suggested by Guterman, e.g., providing:
wherein the elongated body includes an internal cavity to receive therein a hinge pin that extends from the hinge assembly;
in order to rotatably couple the top panel to the chassis.
Additionally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 13-15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claims 4-6 and 13-15, the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the apparatus as recited in the dependent claims 4-6 and 13-15, including all of the limitations of their base claims and intervening claims, and at least in part, because they recite the following limitations:
4. The hinge barrel air duct of claim 3, wherein, when the information handling system is in an open position, the first exhaust outlet redirects a portion of the exhaust airflow upward and away from the chassis and the second exhaust outlet directs another portion of the exhaust airflow downward and away from the chassis.
5. The hinge barrel air duct of claim 3, wherein, when the information handling system is in a closed position, the first exhaust outlet operates to receive the exhaust airflow, the second intake operates to redirect another portion of the exhaust airflow downward and away from the chassis.
6. The hinge barrel air duct of claim 1, wherein a rotation of the top panel away from the chassis creates a gap between the hinge barrel air duct and the chassis, the gap being less than or equal to 1 millimeter (mm).
13. The IHS of claim 12, wherein, when the IHS is in an open position, the first exhaust outlet redirects a portion of the exhaust airflow upward and away from the chassis and the second exhaust outlet directs another portion of the exhaust airflow downward and away from the chassis.
14. The IHS of claim 12, wherein, when the IHS is in a closed position, the first exhaust outlet receives the exhaust airflow, the second
15. The IHS of claim 10, wherein a rotation of the top panel away from the chassis creates a gap between the hinge barrel air duct and the chassis, the gap being less than or equal to 1 millimeter (mm).
Chung (US 20230280804 A1), Degner (US 20180184545 A1), and Pais (US 20070097628 A1) disclose related hinges and air ducts.
However, none of the prior art, either alone or in combination, can be reasonably construed as adequately teaching the above claimed elements, in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Further, Examiner has not identified any double patenting issues.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 19-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claims 19-20, the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the apparatus as recited in independent claim 19, and at least in part, because claim 19 recites the following limitations:
19. An information handling system (IHS) comprising:
a chassis, the chassis including: a processor; and a memory operatively coupled with the processor;
a top panel having embedded therein a display operatively coupled with the processor and memory, wherein the top panel and chassis are pivotally connected by a hinge assembly; and
a hinge barrel air duct including:
an elongated body configured to be positioned adjacent to the top panel;
a first exhaust outlet formed in a first region of the elongated body, wherein the first exhaust outlet redirects an exhaust airflow away from the chassis;
a second exhaust outlet formed in a second region of the elongated body, wherein the second exhaust outlet redirects the exhaust airflow away from the chassis and the top panel; and
an exhaust intake formed in a third region of the elongated body, wherein the third region is located between the first and second regions of the elongated body, and wherein the exhaust intake receives the exhaust airflow expelled from the chassis; and
wherein rotating the top panel away from the chassis creates a gap between the hinge barrel air duct and the chassis.
None of the prior art, either alone or in combination, can be reasonably construed as adequately teaching the above limitations in combination with the remaining claim elements.
Further, Examiner has not identified any double patenting issues.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB R CRUM whose telephone number is (571)270-7665. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached on (571) 272-3740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACOB R CRUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights