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 § 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 3-5, and 11-13, 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 3; ”heat rejecting media” is unclear; whereas the base claim 1 already asserts an airflow, and thus it cannot be readily ascertained if media is deemed to refer back to the airflow or is otherwise deemed as different. Further, “a first portion” and “a second portion” is asserted without referring back to “a portion of airflow exhausting from the first air mover” already asserting claim 1, and thus a first portion and a second portion does not readily assert if the respective portions are deemed as combined, separate and/or with some structure i.e. therebetween or defined by the redirection feature etc. Regarding claim 11; ”heat rejecting media” is unclear; whereas the base claim 9 already asserts: airflow, and thus it cannot be readily ascertained if media is deemed to refer back to the airflow or is otherwise deemed as different. Further, “a first portion” and “a second portion” is asserted without referring back to “a portion of airflow exhausting from the first air mover” already asserting claim 9, and thus a first portion and a second portion does not readily assert if the respective portions are deemed as combined, separate and/or with some structure i.e. therebetween or defined by the redirection feature etc. Regarding claim 13; “the retention feature” is unclear; whereas a retention feature is not previously asserted, and thus it cannot be readily ascertained if intended to refer back to the redirection feature or define a different structure.
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, and 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by (Malone 2005/0241810).
Regarding Claim 1; Malone discloses a system (electronic and/or computer system—as set forth by para. 0001) comprising: a housing (wherein the system comprises a housing—para. 0001); a first air mover (as constituted by 308 at one side of the housing defined by 308 defining the fan—as depicted by Fig. 4 at a bottom of the page); a second air mover (as constituted by 308 at another side of the housing defined by 308 defining a second fan—as depicted by Fig. 4 at a top of the page); and a ducting assembly arranged in proximity to an exhaust of the first air mover and having a redirection feature configured to redirect at least a portion of airflow exhausting from the first air mover to a volume of space within the housing downstream of the second air mover (as set forth by para. 0024--whereas 310 is defined as a controllable resistance module which constitutes a ducting assembly which may include controllable louvers or sliding plates with variable perforations—as further set forth by para. 0027, wherein the 310 is disposed at an outlet of the second fan and in-part constitutes redirecting airflow).
Regarding Claim 9, the method steps are necessitated by the already disclosed structure of Casparian.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 8-11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by (Casparian 2019/0294222).
Regarding Claim 1; Casparian discloses a system (a system—as set forth by para. 0005) comprising: a housing (wherein the system comprises a housing constituted by a chassis enclosure-149 and/or chassis-181 —para.’s 0027-0028 and 0031---as depicted by Fig.’s 2A-2B, 3-4 and/or 5); a first air mover (as constituted by 278 which draws in air via 207); a second air mover (as constituted by 178); and a ducting assembly (as constituted by 203, 197, 503 and 177—as depicted by Fig.’s 2A-2B) arranged in proximity to an exhaust of the first air mover and having a redirection feature configured to redirect at least a portion of airflow exhausting from the first air mover to a volume of space within the housing downstream of the second air mover (as set forth by para. 0024—whereas the ducting assembly is disposed at an exhaust side of the second fan and changes position at 179a and 179b to re-direct from the first and second fan through outlet(s) 177 into a space defined by a notebook computer and/or a portion of the housing at 149).
Regarding Claim 2; Casparian discloses the system of Claim 1, further comprising: a first air intake vent formed in the housing (207); and a second air intake vent formed in the housing; wherein: the first air mover is located proximate to the first air intake vent and configured to draw air into the housing via the first air intake vent (as already set forth and depicted by Fig.’s 3-4); and the second air mover is located substantially further away from the first air intake vent than the first air mover, located substantially further away from the second air intake vent than the first air mover is located from the first air intake vent, and configured to draw air into the housing via the second air intake vent (as already set forth and as depicted by Fig.’s 3-4).
Regarding Claim 3; Casparian discloses the system of Claim 1, further comprising heat-rejecting media comprising: a first portion downstream of an exhaust of the first air mover; and a second portion downstream of an exhaust of the second air mover (each each outlet 177 is downstream of the first and second fans; NOTE: the assertion does not separate between the portions at only one particular location—if so intended).
Regarding Claim 8; the system of Claim 7, wherein the parallel feature creates a gasket between the housing and another feature located within the housing (as constituted by a seal-141 which is atleast indirectly between a housing portion-155 and a fitting 157 extending from the parallel feature).
Regarding Claims 9-11, the method steps are necessitated by the already disclosed structure of Casparian.
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) 6-7, and 14-16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Casparian 2019/0294222).
Regarding Claim 6; Casparian discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the redirection feature has a length running from an end of the exhaust of the first air mover to an exhaust of the housing (as depicted by Fig.’s 3-4), except, explicitly disclosing the in a direction non-parallel and non-perpendicular to a direction of airflow from the first air mover. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the flexibility and respective angles of flexion to provide a exhaust air path that is non-parallel and non-perpendicular with respect to the first fan and the exhausts so as to allow for desired air quantity at desired speed, and/or with reduced 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 7; Casparian discloses the system of Claim 6, wherein the ducting assembly further comprises a parallel feature that has a length running from the end of the exhaust of the first air mover to the exhaust of the housing in a direction parallel to the direction of airflow of the first air mover (as depicted by Fig. 5--whereas 197 as a whole extends parallel to the exhaust side of the first fan-178).
Regarding Claims 14-15, the method steps are necessitated by the already modified structure of Casparian.
Regarding Claim 16; the method of Claim 15, further comprising creating a gasket between the housing and another feature located within the housing with the parallel feature (as constituted by a seal-141 which is atleast indirectly between a housing portion-155 and a fitting 157 extending from the parallel feature).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 12-13, 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 4; the system of Claim 3, wherein the redirection feature has a height approximately equal to a distance between the second portion and the housing. Note: allowability is based in-part on any 112(b) being overcome including structure between the portions.
Regarding Claim 12; the method of Claim 11, wherein the redirection feature has a height approximately equal to a distance between the second portion and the housing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12309975 B2
Gordon, Jr.; Derek et al.
Fig. 2
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