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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “two heat dissipation apparatuses located on two opposite sides” must be shown and labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-21, are 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. Regarding Claim 1; “at least one heat dissipation fan” is unclear; whereas atleast on heat dissipation fan constitutes a broadest reasonable interpretation of only “one fan” and varying different claim constructions appear to selectively require the atleast one heat dissipation fan, the atleast one heat dissipation fan comprises two fans or the atleast one heat dissipation fan comprises three fans which are herein deemed to denote more than one plausible claim construction in which each defines a different inventive structures. Note: As such, any alternative claim construction which is different with respect to that which is constructively elected is deemed as non-elected. Further, “a circumferential direction” is unclear; whereas the term is asserted as if the shell is cylindrical and defines one exterior sidewall. However, it the office herein notes that the drawings only appear to denote a plurality of sidewalls in which each is disposed along a different plane in different directions. Regarding Claim 3; “a second direction” is unclear; whereas the phase is asserted in claim 3 without presenting a first direction so as to constitute a numerical sequence defined by a second. Regarding Claim 10; “the heat dissipation fan(s)” is unclear; whereas the fan(s) does not properly refer back to the fan, two fans, or three fans and thus lacks antecedent basis. Further, “a heat generation module” is unclear; whereas the feature is not asserted with respect to “a component” already asserted in claim 1, and thus it cannot be ascertained if the component comprise the module or if the features are separate. Regarding Claim 15; “an air passage” is unclear and lacks antecedence; whereas base claim 3 already asserts an air passage; and further, “a distance between the heat dissipation fan(s)” is unclear; whereas the fan(s) allows for one fan and does not necessitate more than one fan, and thus a distance between one fan does not properly denote a plausible claim construction. Regarding Claim 17; “a limiting body” is unclear; whereas the claim does not characterize any limiting structures, characteristics or functions so as to provide any particular type of structure which constitutes a particular function include mechanical limiting vibration, movement, airflow, and/or electrical control etc. and thus more than one plausible claim construction will read thereon. Regarding Claim 19; the claim asserts: “wherein the heat dissipation apparatus comprises two heat dissipation apparatuses located on two opposite sides of the heat generation module along a first direction respectively, and the first direction is a direction parallel to an air passage direction of the heat dissipation fans in the heat dissipation apparatuses” which is unclear whereas the base claim requires the heat dissipation module in the shell of the apparatus, and thus it cannot be readily ascertained how the applicant intends the two appratus on opposite sides; and further it cannot be ascertained how the opposite apparatus associates and cooperates with a first direction of an air passage (which is already asserted and lacks antecedence), and whether the fan is deemed to face the component and if the air is deemed to alternatively operate and flow air in the same direction or an opposite direction or simultaneously flow in a separate air passage in the first direction, and thus the claim is herein deemed to read on more than one plausible claim construction. Going further, the base claim requires a particular cooperative relationship of the apparatus and the fan with a first panel; whereas the instant claim does not assert a corresponding panel or orientation of the module or the apparatus therewith. Regarding Claim 20; “the heat dissipation fan(s) in the heat dissipation apparatus(es)” is unclear; whereas the base claims only assert a heat dissipation apparatus, and it cannot be ascertained how the applicant intends to employ more than one apparatus on the same side or at opposite sides etc. Note: Due to the outstanding number of informalities, the Office notes that the above objections are a non-exhaustive list, and thus requests Applicant’s cooperation with reviewing the claims and correcting all remaining informalities present in the claims, but not made of record above. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5, 8, 10-12, and 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by (Mease 7,054,155).
Regarding Claim 1; Mease discloses a heat dissipation apparatus (as depicted by Fig. 1--and constituted by col. 3, lines 46-60—whereas an assembly housing electronic components require cooling with fan trays, each having fans —as set forth by para. 0047), comprising a shell and at least one heat dissipation fan mounted in the shell (as constituted by module 50 defining a shell which in-part mounts fans 104,106, 108, 202, 204, and 206 within an opening of the shell), wherein the shell comprises a first panel and side walls disposed along a circumferential direction of the first panel, the at least one heat dissipation fan is disposed on the first panel (whereas the shell includes a plurality of sidewalls atleast in-part encircling a perimeter of the fans—as depicted by Fig.’s 1 and 8; and the shell includes a first panel defined by 10 including 100 and 200 in which the fans are disposed thereon), the first panel is provided with a first hollowed-out structure corresponding to the at least one heat dissipation fan, and a side of the at least one heat dissipation fan away from the first panel is configured to face towards a component to be cooled (as depicted by Fig.’s 1, 3, and 6—whereas the first panel comprises openings disposed on an outside of the fans fluidly communicates with an exterior, and Fig.’s 1-2 and 4 further depict the fans face an interior of the shell which comprises the component therein).
Regarding Claim 3; Mease discloses the heat dissipation apparatus of claim 1, wherein the heat dissipation fan comprises at least two heat dissipation fans arrayed in a plurality of rows along a second direction, and the second direction is a direction perpendicular to an air passage direction of the heat dissipation fans (as depicted by Fig. 1—whereas 10 including 100 and 200 each respectively comprising a row of fans array in a second direction perpendicular to airflow direction).
Regarding Claim 5; Mease discloses the heat dissipation apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first hollowed-out structure corresponds to a fin of the heat dissipation fan, and the first hollowed-out structure comprises a plurality of first ventilation holes (as depicted by Fig.’s 3 and 6—whereas the first panel comprises atleast one fin structure corresponding to each respective fan).
Regarding Claim 8; Mease discloses the heat dissipation apparatus of claim 1, wherein the heat dissipation fan is provided with a fixing hole close to an edge of the heat dissipation fan (as depicted by Fig.’s 2 and 4—whereas each fan depicts holes near corner(s) Note: the claim does not assert how the holes are deemed to fix or associate with any other feature).
Regarding Claim 10; Mease discloses a computing device (as disclosed by col. 1, lines 5-12 and col. 2, lines 55-57), comprising a heat generation module and the heat dissipation apparatus of claim 3, wherein the heat generation module is located in the shell of the heat dissipation apparatus, and the heat dissipation fan(s) in the heat dissipation apparatus is located on at least a side of the heat generation module (as already disclosed by col. 3, lines 46-60).
Regarding Claim 11; Mease discloses the computing device of claim 10, wherein the heat dissipation fan(s) in the heat dissipation apparatus is located on a first side of the heat generation module (as already disclosed by col. 3, lines 46-60), and a side of the heat dissipation fan(s) in the heat dissipation apparatus away from the first panel faces towards the heat generation module (as already set forth).
Regarding Claim 12; Mease discloses the computing device of claim 10, wherein the side walls of the heat dissipation apparatus are an integrally molded structure (as disclosed by col. 5, lines 55-61—whereas sheet metal material is bent).
Regarding Claim 15; Mease discloses the computing device of claim 10, wherein a distance between the heat dissipation fan(s) in the heat dissipation apparatus and the heat generation module in a first direction ranges from 20 mm to 30 mm, and the first direction is a direction parallel to an air passage direction of the heat dissipation fan(s).
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) 2, 4, and 6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Mease 7,054,155) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of (Liao 2014/0211419).
Regarding Claim 2; Malone discloses the heat dissipation apparatus of claim 1, except, explicitly wherein the heat dissipation fan comprises at least two heat dissipation fans side by side in a plurality of columns in a first direction, and the first direction is a direction parallel to an air passage direction of the heat dissipation fans. However, Liao discloses a heat dissipation fan comprises at least two heat dissipation fans side by side in a plurality of columns in a first direction, and the first direction is a direction parallel to an air passage direction of the heat dissipation fans (as depicted by Fig.’s 1 or 16—whereas side to side fans form columns in a first direction), and thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the fans side by side in columns since it was known in the art that air flow quantity may be changed according to different requirements.
Regarding Claim 4; Malone discloses the heat dissipation apparatus of claim 1, except explicitly wherein the heat dissipation fan comprises at least three heat dissipation fans, with the at least two heat dissipation fans side by side in a plurality of columns in a first direction and arrayed in a plurality of rows in a second direction, the first direction is a direction parallel to an air passage direction of the heat dissipation fans, and the second direction is a direction perpendicular to the air passage direction of the heat dissipation fans. However, Liao discloses a heat dissipation fan comprises at least two heat dissipation fans side by side in a plurality of columns in a first direction, and the first direction is a direction parallel to an air passage direction of the heat dissipation fans (as depicted by Fig.’s 1 or 16—discloses three fans and at least two side by side fans form columns in a first direction and a fan array in a second perpendicular direction), and thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the fans side by side in columns and a fan array in a second perpendicular direction since it was known in the art that air flow quantity may be changed according to different requirements.
Regarding Claim 6; the heat dissipation apparatus of claim 1, except, explicitly wherein the first panel is provided with a mounting hole, and the heat dissipation fan close to the first panel is fixed in the mounting hole through a screw. However, Liao discloses wherein the first panel is provided with a mounting hole, and the heat dissipation fan close to the first panel is fixed in the mounting hole through a screw (as depicted by Fig.’s 1 or 3—whereas holder-12 constitutes a first panel constitutes a mounting hole for screws securing fan bracket(s) 13 or 14 to atleast indirectly coupled the fan—as set forth by para. 0037), and thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the heat dissipation fan close to the first panel is fixed in the mounting hole through a screw since it was known in the art that secure and reliable fan operation will be achieved with reduced noise from vibration.
Claim(s) 13-14, 16-18, and 20-21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Mease 7,054,155) as applied to claim 11 above, in view of (Bechtolsheim 2008/0212273).
Regarding Claim 13; Mease discloses the computing device of claim 11, except, explicitly wherein the computing device further comprises a second panel located on a second side of the heat generation module, mounted on the side walls, and provided with a plurality of heat dissipation grids, and the second side is opposite to the first side. However, Bechtolsheim discloses the computing device further comprises a second panel located on a second side of the heat generation module, mounted on the side walls, and provided with a plurality of heat dissipation grids, and the second side is opposite to the first side, and thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the computing device comprising a second panel on an opposite side wall with a plurality of heat dissipation grids since it was known in the art that heated airflow may uniformly flow through device to output heat over an increased surface area.
Regarding Claim 14; Mease discloses the already modified computing device of claim 13, except, explicitly wherein the heat dissipation grids have a size in a range from 4.5 mm to 5.5 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify a size in a range from 4.5 mm to 5.5 mm so as to uniformly cool the component and the heat dissipation module in accordance with computing device type and cooling requirements, 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 art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 16; Mease discloses the already modified computing device of claim 13, except, explicitly wherein a distance between the second panel and the heat generation module in a first direction ranges from 0 to 5 mm, and the first direction is a direction parallel to an air passage direction of the heat dissipation fan(s). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the a distance between the second panel and the heat generation module in a first direction ranges from 0 to 5 mm so as to optimize air flow with reduced recirculation, and reduce noise, 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 art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 17; Mease discloses the already modified computing device of claim 14, wherein the heat generation module comprises a plurality of computing power board assemblies arranged in parallel, a limiting body is disposed on a side of the second panel towards the heat generation module, and the limiting body abuts against at least one of the computing power board assemblies (as disclosed by col. 2, lines 53-67—as constituted by computer processor cartridges to a socket on a motherboard including a bracket and retention mechanism).
Regarding Claim 18; Mease discloses the already modified computing device of claim 17, wherein the limiting body protrudes towards the heat generation module (as disclosed by col. 2, lines 53-67—atleast via the socket).
Regarding Claim 20; Mease discloses the computing device of claim 13, wherein the heat generation module comprises a plurality of computing power board assemblies arranged in parallel, each disposed in the shell along a first direction, and the first direction is a direction parallel to an air passage direction of the heat dissipation fan(s) in the heat dissipation apparatus(es) (as disclosed by col. 2, lines 53-67—as constituted by pluggable computer processor cartridges).
Regarding Claim 21; Mease discloses the computing device of claim 20, wherein a limiting strip is mounted on an inner side of a bottom wall and/or top wall of the side walls, the limiting strip is disposed along an arrangement direction of the computing power board assemblies, the limiting strip is located between the heat dissipation apparatus(es) and the computing power board assemblies, and each of the computing power board assemblies abuts against the limiting strip (as disclosed by col. 2, lines 53-67—as constituted by computer processor cartridges to a socket on a motherboard including a bracket and retention mechanism).
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Mease 7,054,155) as applied to claim 10 above, in view of (Malone 2005/0241810).
Regarding Claim 19; Mease discloses the already modified computing device of claim 10, except explicitly wherein the heat dissipation apparatus comprises two heat dissipation apparatuses located on two opposite sides of the heat generation module along a first direction respectively, and the first direction is a direction parallel to an air passage direction of the heat dissipation fans in the heat dissipation apparatuses. However, Malone discloses two heat dissipation apparatuses located on two opposite sides of the heat generation module along a first direction respectively, and the first direction is a direction parallel to an air passage direction of the heat dissipation fans in the heat dissipation apparatuses (as depicted by Fig.’s 1-4), and thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the computing device with an opposite apparatus since it was known in the art that enhanced air flow quantity may be achieved and/or cooling reliability will be achieved by selectively controlling a redundant apparatus which may operate upon failure of a first apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9, are 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.
Regarding Claim 7; the heat dissipation apparatus of claim 2, wherein two adjacent heat dissipation fans in the first direction are fixedly connected through a screw.
Regarding Claim 9; the heat dissipation apparatus of claim 2, wherein the heat dissipation fans are provided with fixing holes, and the first panel is provided with mounting holes matching the fixing holes, and fixing screws sequentially pass through the mounting holes and the fixing holes of at least two columns of the heat dissipation fans arrayed along the first direction to fix the at least two columns of heat dissipation fans, and the first direction is a direction parallel to an air passage direction of the heat dissipation fans.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9094. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5p.
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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at 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 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.
/COURTNEY L SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights