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 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 1-3, 9, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vander Ploeg et al (US 20100319948; “Vander” hereinafter), in view of Robinson et al (US 4426675; “Robinson” hereinafter), and further in view of Hoffman (US 5506373; “Hoffman” hereinafter) and Suzuki et al (US 6278609; “Suzuki” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Vander teaches: a Circuit Card Assembly (CCA) module comprising:
an electronics enclosure (16, fig. 2) with an exterior face (50, fig. 5, ¶[0025]) of a sidewall (first side 44 and second side 46); and
a card cage within the electronics enclosure (perimeter defined by the Plurality of 20, fig. 2), the card cage including:
a first plurality of slide rails proximate (20, figs. 2-3), coupled to, or forming a part of a first side (44) of the electronics enclosure (¶[0033]); and
a second plurality of slide rails (20) proximate, coupled to, or forming a part of a second side (46) of the electronics enclosure (¶[0033]), the first and second sides of the electronics enclosure opposite to and parallel with one another (figs. 2-3),
a heat sink (58 and 59) located on the exterior face of the sidewall of the electronics enclosure (fig. 5), the heat sink opposite to and thermally coupled (¶[0053]) with the first plurality of slide rails (as disclosed upon examination of figures 5-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
302
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein each of the first plurality of slide rails is aligned with a corresponding one of the second plurality of slide rails, thereby defining a card slot (21, fig. 2) spanning a span dimension therebetween, each of the plurality of card slots configured to receive a printed circuit board (PCB) module therein (14, figs. 2-3, and 7), the span dimension of each of the card slots being directed along an axis (horizontal plane of fig. 7) intercepting each of the first and second sides of the electronics enclosure (fig. 7).
Vander does not explicitly disclose:
the span dimension of each of the card slots being directed along an axis intercepting each of the first and second sides of the electronics enclosure at an angle of incidence that is greater than 20 degrees from normal vectors thereto;
the exterior face of a sidewall having a recessed portion and an un-recessed portion; and
a heat sink located within the recessed portion of the exterior face of the sidewall of the electronics enclosure, the heat sink opposite to and thermally coupled with the first plurality of slide rails, wherein the heat sink extends from the recessed portion of the sidewall to a distal end that is substantially coplanar with the un-recessed portion of the sidewall.
However, Dang teaches:
PNG
media_image2.png
318
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a span dimension of each of a card slots (annotated as ‘SD’ in annotated fig. 1 below) being directed along an axis intercepting each of the first and second sides (11, fig. 1) of an electronics enclosure (10 and 11, fig. 1) at an angle of incidence that is greater than 20 degrees from normal vectors thereto (as disclosed upon examination of fig. 1 and ¶[0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Robinson’s teaching into Vander, such that the span dimension of each of the card slots being directed along an axis intercepting each of the first and second sides of the electronics enclosure at an angle of incidence that is greater than 20 degrees from normal vectors thereto, in order to fit wider printed circuit boards within the enclosure, than if the circuit boards were disposed perpendicular to the first and second side (col. 2, lines 34-37).
Vander in view of Dang does not explicitly disclose:
the exterior face of a sidewall having a recessed portion and an un-recessed portion; and
the heat sink located within the recessed portion of the exterior face of the sidewall of the electronics enclosure, the heat sink opposite to and thermally coupled with the first plurality of slide rails, wherein the heat sink extends from the recessed portion of the sidewall to a distal end that is substantially coplanar with the un-recessed portion of the sidewall.
However, Hoffman teaches:
an electronics enclosure (16, fig. 1) the exterior face of a sidewall having a recessed portion (where the heat sink fins are disposed) and
an un-recessed portion (see annotated fig. 1 below); and
PNG
media_image3.png
725
836
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a heat sink located within the recessed portion of the exterior face of a sidewall of the electronics enclosure (see annotated fig. 1 below), the heat sink opposite to and thermally coupled with a first plurality of slide rails (24, fig. 1, col. 2; lines 47-49), wherein the heat sink extends from the recessed portion of the sidewall to a distal end that is substantially coplanar with the un-recessed portion of the sidewall (see annotated fig. 1 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the sidewall of Vander according to Hoffman’s teaching, such that the exterior face of a sidewall (both first side 44 and second side 46) has a recessed portion and an un-recessed portion, with the heat sink located within the recessed portion of the exterior face of a sidewall of the electronics enclosure, to meet the limitation of claim 1, as a such modification would provide an electronic enclosure with a compact structure. The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Hoffman. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Vander in view of Dang and Hoffman does not explicitly disclose:
the heat sink and the first plurality of slide rails form a unitary body.
However Suzuki teaches:
a heat sink (2, fig. 1) and a first plurality of slide rails (2b, fig. 1) form a unitary body (col. 3, lines 36-39) for receiving IC Cards (1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the heat sink of Vander in view of Dang and Hoffman, with Suzuki’s teaching, such that the heat sink and the first plurality of slide rails form a unitary body, in order to allow efficient heat transfer capabilities, for the advantage of keeping the printed circuit board at a suitable temperature or less and thereby it is prevented from suffering malfunction or failure due to heating at a high temperature by self-heat generation thereof (col. 4, lines 4-6). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to make plural parts unitary was a matter of obvious engineering choice (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 2, Vander in view of Robinson, Hoffman and Suzuki teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Robinson further teaches:
wherein the angle of incidence is greater than 30 degrees (“the channel members can be inclined, as shown, at any convenient angle”, col. 2, lines 34-37).
Regarding claim 3, Vander in view of Robinson, Hoffman and Suzuki teaches the limitations of claim 2, and Robinson further teaches:
wherein the angle of incidence is greater than 40 degrees (“the channel members can be inclined, as shown, at any convenient angle”, col. 2, lines 34-37).
Regarding claim 9, Vander in view of Robinson, Hoffman and Suzuki teaches the limitations of claim 1, and the combination further teaches:
wherein the heat sink having a distal end (vertical top edge) is a first heat sink (see annotated fig. 7 below, Vander) having a first distal end (fig. 1, Vander), and the exterior face of the sidewall having the recessed portion and the un-recessed portion is a first exterior face (50, Vander) of a first sidewall (44, Vander) having a first recessed portion and a first un-recessed portion (via the combination of Hoffman into Vander), the electronics enclosure further comprising:
a second exterior face (50, Vander) of a second sidewall (46, Vander) having a second recessed portion and a second un-recessed portion (via the combination of Hoffman into Vander), a second heat sink (see annotated fig. 7 below, Vander) located within the second recessed portion of the second exterior face (50, fig. 5, Vander) of the second sidewall of the electronics enclosure, the second heat sink opposite to and thermally coupled (¶[0053]) with the second plurality of slide rails (as disclosed upon examination of figures 5-7, Vander), wherein the second heat sink extends from the second recessed portion of the second sidewall to a second distal end that is substantially coplanar with the second un-recessed portion of the second sidewall (this limitation is meet via the combination of Hoffman into Vander, in claim 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
445
732
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Vander in view of Robinson, Hoffman and Suzuki teaches the limitations of claim 9, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the second heat sink and the second plurality of slide rails, is formed as a unitary body.
However, Suzuki teaches:
a second heat sink (second instance of 2, fig. 1) and a second plurality of slide rails (second instance of 2b, fig. 1) form a unitary body (col. 3, lines 36-39) for receiving IC Cards (1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the heat sink of Vander in view of Dang and Hoffman, with Suzuki’s teaching, such that wherein the second heat sink and the second plurality of slide rails, is formed as a unitary body, in order to allow efficient heat transfer capabilities, for the advantage of keeping the printed circuit board at a suitable temperature or less and thereby it is prevented from suffering malfunction or failure due to heating at a high temperature by self-heat generation thereof (col. 4, lines 4-6). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to make plural parts unitary was a matter of obvious engineering choice (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 12, Vander in view of Robinson, Hoffman and Suzuki teaches the limitations of claim 9, and Vander further teaches:
wherein first and second heat sinks extend from a bottom side of the enclosure to a top side of the enclosure (as discloses upon examination of figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 14, Vander in view of Robinson, Hoffman and Suzuki teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Robinson further teaches:
further comprising a removable cover (42, figs. 2-3) that removably covers an opening (18) through which a CCA module(s) (68, fig. 2) can be inserted into and/or removed from the electronics enclosure (¶[0023]).
Claim 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vander Ploeg et al (US 20100319948; “Vander” hereinafter), in view of Robinson, Hoffman and Suzuki as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sunstein (US 4473263; “Sunstein” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, Vander in view of Robinson, Hoffman and Suzuki teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a separation distance between the first and second sides of the electronics enclosure is less than the span dimension of each of the card slots defined between corresponding ones of the first and second pluralities of slide rails.
However, Sunstein teaches:
wherein a separation distance (see annotated fig. 2 below) between a first and a second side (see annotated fig. 2 below) of an electronics device (device of fig. 2) is less than the span dimension (see annotated fig. 2 below) of each of a card slot (space occupied by circuit board 12, fig. 2) defined between corresponding one of a first (21, fig. 2) and a second connector (235, fig. 2).
PNG
media_image5.png
741
508
media_image5.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 Sunstein’s teaching into Vander as modified by Robinson, Hoffman and Suzuki, such that a separation distance between the first and second sides of the electronics enclosure is less than the span dimension of each of the card slots defined between corresponding ones of the first and second pluralities of slide rails, in order to allow fitment of mounting of printed circuit boards wider than a separation distance between the first and second sides of the electronics enclosure (col. 1, lines 22-24, lines 62-65), since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (oblique mounting of circuit boards within enclosures) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Sunstein. 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 5, Vander in view of Robinson, Hoffman, Suzuki and Sunstein teaches the limitations of claim 4, and Sunstein further discloses:
wherein a ratio of the span dimension to the separation distance between the first and second sides is greater than 120% (“For example, if the length L.sub.c of a circuit board is approximately 6 1/2 inches and its width is 4 1/2 inches, the circuit boards can be accommodated in a mounting device having a depth D of approximately five inches”, fig. 1B, col 3, lines 62-66).
Regarding claim 6, Vander in view of Robinson, Hoffman, Suzuki and Sunstein teaches the limitations of claim 5. and Sunstein further discloses:
Vander in view of Robinson and Sunstein is silent regarding:
wherein a ratio of the span dimension to the separation distance between the first and second sides is greater than 130%.
However, Sunstein discloses:
“these dimensions are a preferred set of dimensions for use in the preferred embodiment discussed below, although different-sized circuit boards and particular needs may dictate other preferred dimensions (col. 4, lines 7-10)”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Vander in view of Robinson, Hoffman, Suzuki and Sunstein and set a ratio of the span dimension to the separation distance between the first and second sides is greater than 130%, since it has been held, that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the arts (MPEP 2144.05). In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The modification to would allow mounting of printed circuit boards with a span dimension larger than the separation space of the enclosure.
Regarding claim 7, Vander in view of Robinson, Hoffman, Suzuki and Sunstein teaches the limitations of claim 6, but is silent regarding:
wherein a ratio of the span dimension to the separation distance between the first and second sides is greater than 140%.
However, Sunstein discloses:
“these dimensions are a preferred set of dimensions for use in the preferred embodiment discussed below, although different-sized circuit boards and particular needs may dictate other preferred dimensions (col. 4, lines 7-10)”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Vander in view of Robinson, Hoffman, Suzuki and Sunstein and set a ratio of the span dimension to the separation distance between the first and second sides is greater than 140%, since it has been held, that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the arts (MPEP 2144.05). In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The modification to would allow mounting of printed circuit boards with a span dimension larger than the separation space of the enclosure.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vander Ploeg et al (US 20100319948; “Vander” hereinafter), in view of Robinson, Hoffman, and Suzuki as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Tracewell et al (US 20080218980; “Tracewell” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 13, Vander in view of Robinson, Hoffman, Suzuki teaches the limitations of claim 11, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein each of the first and second heat sinks has a plurality of vertical fins facilitating airflow from a bottom to a top of each of the first and second heat sinks.
However, Tracewell teaches:
first and second heat sinks (256, 258, fig. 21) has a plurality of vertical fins (fig. 21) facilitating airflow from an end to an opposite end of each of the first and second heat sinks (fig. 20, “The air flow path for chassis 220 is essentially the same as that described in connection with chassis 40 in connection with FIG. 20”, ¶[0073]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Tracewell’s teaching into Vander in view of Robinson, Hoffman, Suzuki such that each of the first and second heat sinks has a plurality of vertical fins facilitating airflow from a bottom to a top of each of the first and second heat sinks, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (heat exchanger / transfer air flow) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Tracewell. 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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vander Ploeg et al (US 20100319948; “Vander” hereinafter), in view of Robinson, Hoffman, and Suzuki as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Kehret et al (US 20120020017; “Kehret” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 15, Vander in view of Robinson teaches the limitations of claim 14, but does not explicitly teach:
further comprising:
a backplane on a side of the electronics enclosure opposite the opening, the backplane having connectors configured to connect to any CCA module(s) inserted into the electronics enclosure and guided to a corresponding one of the connectors of the backplane by the corresponding ones of the first and second slide rails.
However, Kehret teaches:
a backplane (600, fig. 6B) on a side of an electronics enclosure (500, 508, 604 figs. 5B, 6A) opposite an opening (as disclosed upon examination of figs. 5A, 6A and 6B), the backplane having connectors (602) configured to connect to modules (100, fig. 6A-6B, ¶[0050]) inserted into the electronics enclosure and guided to a corresponding one of the connectors (602, fig. 6B) of the backplane by the corresponding ones of a first and a second slide rails (614, fig. 6B, ¶[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Kehret’s backplane configured to Vander in view of Robinson’s architecture, such that the backplane is on a side of the electronics enclosure opposite the opening, the backplane having connectors configured to connect to any CCA module(s) inserted into the electronics enclosure and guided to a corresponding one of the connectors of the backplane by the corresponding ones of the first and second slide rails, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (backplane as PCB / card interface) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Kehret. 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 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vander Ploeg et al (US 20100319948; “Vander” hereinafter), in view of Hoffman, and further in view of Sunstein (US 4473263; “Sunstein” hereinafter), and Suzuki.
Regarding claim 16, Vander teaches: a card cage configured to receive a plurality of Printed Circuit Board (PCB) modules therewithin, the card cage including:
a first plurality of slide rails (20, figs. 2-3) aligned with one another (element 20 are shown parallelly aligned) along a first alignment plane (defined by 44); and
a second plurality of slide rails (opposing 20, figs. 2-3) aligned with one another (element 20 are shown parallelly aligned) along a second alignment plane (defined by 46), the first and second alignment planes parallel to one another (fig. 2), wherein the first and second pluralities of slide rails are between the first and second alignment planes (as disclosed in fig. 2),
a heat sink (58 and 59, fig. 7) located within a recessed portion of an exterior face (50, fig. 5) of a sidewall (44 and 46) of an electronics enclosure (16, fig. 2), the heat sink opposite to and thermally coupled (¶[0053]) with the first plurality of slide rails (as disclosed upon examination of figures 5-7),
wherein each of the first plurality of slide rails is aligned with a corresponding one of the second plurality of slide rails (as disclosed in fig. 2), thereby defining a card slot (21, fig. 2) spanning a span dimension therebetween, each of the plurality of card slots configured to receive a Printed Circuit Board (PCB) module (14 and 68), therein.
Vander does not explicitly disclose:
the span dimension being greater than a distance between the first and second alignment planes,
the exterior face of the sidewall having a recessed portion; and
the heat sink located within the recessed portion of the exterior face of the sidewall of the electronics enclosure,
wherein the heat sink and the first plurality of slide rails form a unitary body.
However, Sunstein teaches:
PNG
media_image6.png
695
541
media_image6.png
Greyscale
a span dimension being greater than a distance between a first and a second alignment planes (annotated fig. 2 below discloses this limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Sunstein’s teaching into Vander, such that the span dimension being greater than a distance between the first and second alignment planes, in order to allow fitment of mounting of printed circuit boards having a span wider than the distance between the first and second alignment planes (col. 1, lines 22-24, lines 62-65). The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (oblique mounting of circuit boards within enclosures) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Sunstein. 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).
Vander in view of Sunstein does not explicitly disclose:
the exterior face of the sidewall having a recessed portion; and
the heat sink located within the recessed portion of the exterior face of the sidewall of the electronics enclosure,
wherein the heat sink and the first plurality of slide rails form a unitary body.
However, Hoffman teaches:
an electronics enclosure (16, fig. 1) the exterior face of a sidewall having a recessed portion (where the heat sink fins are disposed); and
PNG
media_image3.png
725
836
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a heat sink (see annotated fig. 1 below) located within the recessed portion of the exterior face of a sidewall of the electronics enclosure (see annotated fig. 1 below), the heat sink opposite to and thermally coupled with a first plurality of slide rails (24, fig. 1, col. 2; lines 47-49), wherein the heat sink extends from the recessed portion of the sidewall to a distal end that is substantially coplanar with the un-recessed portion of the sidewall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the sidewall of Vander in view of Sunstein, according to Hoffman’s teaching, such that an exterior face of a sidewall (both first side 44 and second side 46) has a recessed portion, the heat sink located within the recessed portion of the exterior face of the sidewall of the electronics enclosure, as a such modification would provide an electronic enclosure with a compact structure. The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Hoffman. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Vander in view of Sunstein and Hoffman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the heat sink and the first plurality of slide rails form a unitary body
However Suzuki teaches:
a heat sink (2, fig. 1) and a first plurality of slide rails (2b, fig. 1) form a unitary body (col. 3, lines 36-39) for receiving IC Cards (1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the heat sink of Vander in view of Sunstein and Hoffman, with Suzuki’s teaching, such that the heat sink and the first plurality of slide rails form a unitary body, in order to allow efficient heat transfer capabilities, for the advantage of keeping the printed circuit board at a suitable temperature or less and thereby it is prevented from suffering malfunction or failure due to heating at a high temperature by self-heat generation thereof (col. 4, lines 4-6). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to make plural parts unitary was a matter of obvious engineering choice (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 17, Vander in view of Sunstein, Hoffman and Suzuki teaches the limitations of claim 16, and Sunstein further discloses:
wherein a ratio of the span dimension to the distance between the first and second alignment planes is greater than 120% (“For example, if the length L.sub.c of a circuit board is approximately 6 1/2 inches and its width is 4 1/2 inches, the circuit boards can be accommodated in a mounting device having a depth D of approximately five inches”, fig. 1B, col 3, lines 62-66).
Regarding claim 18, Vander in view of Sunstein, Hoffman and Suzuki teaches the limitations of claim 17, but is silent regarding:
wherein a ratio of the span dimension to the distance between the first and second alignment planes is greater than 130%.
However, Sunstein discloses:
“these dimensions are a preferred set of dimensions for use in the preferred embodiment discussed below, although different-sized circuit boards and particular needs may dictate other preferred dimensions (col. 4, lines 7-10)”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Vander in view of Robinson, Sunstein, Hoffman and Suzuki and set a ratio of the span dimension to the distance between the first and second alignment planes is greater than 130%, since it has been held, that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the arts (MPEP 2144.05). In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The modification to would allow mounting of printed circuit boards with a span dimension larger than a distance between the first and second alignment planes.
Regarding claim 19, Vander in view of Sunstein, Hoffman and Suzuki teaches the limitations of claim 16, and Sunstein further discloses:
wherein the span dimension (Lc, fig. 1B) is directed along an axis (depicted by the axis formed by circuit board 12) intercepting each of the first and second alignment planes (depicted by 11 and 13, fig. 1B) at an angle of incidence (alpha, fig. 1B) that is greater than 20 degrees from normal vectors thereto (fig. 1B, col. 1, lines 22-26; col. 3, lines 59-61).
Regarding claim 20, Vander in view of Sunstein, Hoffman and Suzuki teaches the limitations of claim 19, and Hoffman further discloses:
PNG
media_image3.png
725
836
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the electronics enclosure has an exterior face of a sidewall having a recessed portion and an un-recessed portion, wherein the heat sink is located within the recessed portion of the exterior face of the sidewall of the electronics enclosure, wherein the heat sink extends from the recessed portion of the sidewall to a distal end that is substantially coplanar with the un- recessed portion of the sidewall (see annotated fig. 1 below).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights