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
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) 1-7 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhakta (7,442,050) in further view of Takakusaki (2009/0073655).
Regarding Claim 1: Bhakta teaches a processing subsystem, comprising: a first printed circuit board (PCB) (512) that includes an edge connector (514) that is oriented perpendicular to a first coordinate axis (figs. 15-16) and is located at a first level on the first coordinate axis (figs. 15-16); and a second PCB (530) that is perpendicular to the first coordinate axis (figs. 15-16) and located at a second level on the first coordinate axis (figs. 15-16), wherein the second level is different from the first level (figs. 15-16), and the second PCB has a topside (side including 542) on which an electronic component (542) is mounted (figs. 15-16), but lacks a specific teaching of a processor being mounted on a topside of the second PCB.
Takakusaki teaches a first printed circuit board (23) along with a second PCB (22) having a topside (side including 42) on which a processor (42) is mounted.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Bhakta by having the first printed circuit board including an edge connector as disclosed by Takakusaki in order to allow for a known type of connection between the already disclosed circuit boards in order to allow for a reliable connection along with fitting a specific size constraint that may be required by the user in order to allow for a more versatile system.
Regarding Claim 2: Bhakta teaches wherein the second PCB has a backside (side of 530 including 540 in figs. 15-16) that faces towards the first PCB (figs. 15-16), and wherein the topside of the second PCB faces away from the first PCB (figs. 15-16).
Regarding Claim 3: Bhakta teaches a board-to-board connector (550) that electronically couples the first PCB and the second PCB (figs. 15-16).
Regarding Claim 4: Bhakta teaches wherein a level difference between the second level and the first level along the first coordinate axis corresponds to a height of the board-to-board connector along the first coordinate axis (figs. 15-16).
Regarding Claim 5: Bhakta teaches wherein the board-to-board connector (550) is disposed between the first PCB (512) and the second PCB (530) along the first coordinate axis (figs. 15-16).
Regarding Claim 6: Bhakta teaches wherein a first component (540) is mounted on the backside of the second PCB (figs. 15-16), the first component satisfies a height limit specification (figs. 15-16), and the height limit specification is based on the first level on the first coordinate axis (figs. 15-16).
Regarding Claim 7: Bhakta teaches wherein: a specification height of the first component is measured based on the first level on the first coordinate axis for determining whether the height limit specification is met (figs. 15-16); an actual height of the first component is measured based on the second level on the first coordinate axis (figs. 15-16), and the actual height of the first component is greater than the specification height of the first component (figs. 15-16).
Regarding Claim 9: Bhakta lacks a specific teaching of at least one fan that is coupled to the second PCB.
Takakusaki teaches at least one fan (figs. 3-5) that is coupled to the second PCB (figs. 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Bhakta by having at least one fan that is coupled to the second PCB as disclosed by Takakusaki in order to allow for a known type of connection between the already disclosed circuit boards in order to allow for a reliable connection along with fitting a specific size constraint that may be required by the user in order to allow for a more versatile system.
Regarding Claim 10: Bhakta lacks a specific teaching of the at least one fan is an axial or radial fan.
Takakusaki teaches the at least one fan is an axial or radial fan (figs. 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Bhakta by having at least one fan is an axial or radial fan as disclosed by Takakusaki in order to allow for a known type of connection between the already disclosed circuit boards in order to allow for a reliable connection along with fitting a specific size constraint that may be required by the user in order to allow for a more versatile system.
Regarding Claim 11: Bhakta teaches further comprising at least one heat sink (566) coupled to the second PCB (figs. 15-16), but lacks a specific teaching of wherein the at least one heat sink includes a plurality of fins.
Takakusaki teaches the at least one heat sink (figs. 3-5) includes a plurality of fins (figs. 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Bhakta by having the at least one heat sink includes a plurality of fins as disclosed by Takakusaki in order to allow for a known type of connection between the already disclosed circuit boards in order to allow for a reliable connection along with fitting a specific size constraint that may be required by the user in order to allow for a more versatile system.
Regarding Claim 12: Bhakta lacks a specific teaching of the processing subsystem comprises a peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) card; and the edge connector is adaptable to be coupled to a PCIe slot of a motherboard.
Takakusaki teaches the processing subsystem comprises a peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) card (41); and the edge connector is adaptable to be coupled to a PCIe slot of a motherboard (figs. 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Bhakta by having the processing subsystem comprises a peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) card; and the edge connector is adaptable to be coupled to a PCIe slot of a motherboard as disclosed by Takakusaki in order to allow for a known type of connection between the already disclosed circuit boards in order to allow for a reliable connection along with fitting a specific size constraint that may be required by the user in order to allow for a more versatile system.
Regarding Claim 13: Bhakta lacks a specific teaching of wherein the processor comprises a graphics processing unit.
Takakusaki teaches wherein the processor comprises a graphics processing unit (42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Bhakta by having wherein the processor comprises a graphics processing unit as disclosed by Takakusaki in order to allow for a known type of connection between the already disclosed circuit boards in order to allow for a reliable connection along with fitting a specific size constraint that may be required by the user in order to allow for a more versatile system.
Regarding Claim 14: Bhakta teaches wherein: the second PCB (530) further includes a first component (540) mounted on a backside (figs. 15-16) of the second PCB (figs. 15-16) that satisfies a height limit specification (figs. 15-16); and the height limit specification is based on the first level on the first coordinate axis (figs. 15-16), but lacks a teaching of the height limitation being a PCIe height limitation.
Takakusaki teaches the height limitation being a PCIe height limitation (figs. 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Bhakta by having the height limitation being a PCIe height limitation as disclosed by Takakusaki in order to allow for a known type of connection between the already disclosed circuit boards in order to allow for a reliable connection along with fitting a specific size constraint that may be required by the user in order to allow for a more versatile system.
Regarding Claim 15: Bhakta teaches at least one heat sink (566) coupled to the electronic component, but lacks a specific teaching of the electronic component being a processor.
Takakusaki teaches a first printed circuit board (23) along with a second PCB (22) having a topside (side including 42) on which a processor (42) is mounted.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Bhakta by having the first printed circuit board including an edge connector as disclosed by Takakusaki in order to allow for a known type of connection between the already disclosed circuit boards in order to allow for a reliable connection along with fitting a specific size constraint that may be required by the user in order to allow for a more versatile system.
Regarding Claim 16: Bhakta teaches a computer system, comprising: a processing subsystem comprises: a first printed circuit board (PCB) (512) that includes an edge connector (514) that is oriented perpendicular to a first coordinate axis (figs. 15-16) and is located at a first level (figs. 15-16) on the first coordinate axis (figs. 15-16); and a second PCB (530) that is perpendicular to the first coordinate axis (figs. 15-16) and located at a second level (figs. 15-16) on the first coordinate axis (figs. 15-16), wherein the second level is different from the first level (figs. 15-16), and the second PCB has a topside (side including element 542 in figs. 15-16) on which an electronic component (542) is mounted (figs. 15-16), but lacks a specific teaching of a chassis; a motherboard disposed within the chassis; the processing subsystem within the chassis that is communicatively coupled to the motherboard; and the electronic component being a processor.
Takakusaki teaches a chassis (9); a motherboard (21) disposed within the chassis (fig. 3); the processing subsystem (15) within the chassis (fig. 3) that is communicatively coupled to the motherboard (through 37); and the electronic component being a processor (42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Bhakta by having a chassis; a motherboard disposed within the chassis; the processing subsystem within the chassis that is communicatively coupled to the motherboard; and the electronic component being a processor as disclosed by Takakusaki in order to allow for a known type of connection between the already disclosed circuit boards in order to allow for a reliable connection along with fitting a specific size constraint that may be required by the user in order to allow for a more versatile system.
Regarding Claim 17: Bhakta teaches the second PCB has a backside (side of 530 including 540 in figs. 15-16) that faces towards the first PCB (figs. 15-16), and wherein the topside of the second PCB faces away from the first PCB (figs. 15-16).
Regarding Claim 18: Bhakta teaches the processing subsystem further comprises a board-to-board connector (550) that electronically couples the first PCB and the second PCB (figs. 15-16).
Regarding Claim 19: Bhakta teaches a level difference between the second level and the first level along the first coordinate axis corresponds to a height of the board-to-board connector along the first coordinate axis (figs. 15-16).
Regarding Claim 20: Bhakta teaches the board-to-board connector (550) is disposed between the first PCB and the second PCB along the first coordinate axis (figs. 15-16).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhakta (7,442,050) in further view of Takakusaki (2009/0073655) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Cermak (2003/0077925).
Regarding Claim 8: Bhakta in view of Takakusaki lacks a specific teaching of the first component comprises a power component.
Cermak teaches the first component comprises a power component (66 which is mounted on the backside of the second PCB (10) through the connection with (62) shown in figs. 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Bhakta by having the first component comprises a power component as disclosed by Cermak in order to allow for a known type of connection between the already disclosed circuit boards in order to allow for a reliable connection along with fitting a specific size constraint that may be required by the user in order to allow for a more versatile system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to claim 1 the applicant argues that the combination of prior art of Bhakta and Takakusaki would render the prior art “unsatisfactory for its intended purpose” as per the MPEP 2143.01 while the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically the applicant makes the argument that because Bhakta has a primarily function of being for memory components that if they were replaced with a processor of any kind it would over heat wherein there is no actual knowledge of that happening. The combination of Takakusaki with Bhakta was used because the structures are extremely similar in function, space, and ability for heat dissipation. Takakusaki as seen from figs. 3-8 has a main mother board similar to Bhakta and then also has a daughter board which is where the processor is mounted and this is similar to the structure of Bhakta having a daughter board with an electronic component mounted there on. Both Takakusaki and Bhakta has heat dissipation components specifically in place for the electronic components along with the components are all configured within a tight location having minimal airflow. From this it can be seen since the processor of Takakusaki is mounted on a daughter board in a tight spacing with minimal airflow and having a heat dissipation component, it is a reasonable interpretation that the same processor would be fully functional in the configuration of Bhakta by being located on a daughter board in a tight spacing with minimal airflow and having a heat dissipation component. In regards to claim 16 the applicant merely states the limitations are substantially similar to the limitation discussed above for claim 1 and therefore the response by the examiner for claim 16 is also the same as shown above for claim 1. Therefore these claims are considered as finally rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The art cited in the Notice of References PTO-892 but not relied upon above relate to the current case as they include information and disclosures pertaining to shape memory alloys and their use in electronic devices.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY MICHAEL HAUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-9087. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/ANTHONY M HAUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
