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 .
Status of the Claim
This action is responsive to the amendment and remarks filed on 8/10/26 in reply to the non-final Office action mailed 07/15/2026. Claims 1 and 11–18 have been amended. No claims have been canceled or added. Claims 1–20 are pending. Claims 1–17 are rejected. Claims 18–20 are allowed.
Withdrawn Rejections and Interpretation
In view of the amendment deleting the term "computing" following "the processing device" in claims 1, 11 and 18, the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment presenting claims 11–17 as method claims that no longer recite "means for," the limitations of claims 11, 14, 16 and 17 are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and the rejection of claims 11–17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 18, the rejection of claims 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 (Remarks, pp. 8–10) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Schlitz is no longer relied upon for the housing, airflow path, inlet port or outlet port of claims 1 and 11; it is applied below only for the electrode, alternating current and noise features of dependent claims 2–4 and 12–14.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 18 (Remarks, pp. 11–13) have been fully considered and are persuasive. See the Reasons for Allowance below.
Claim Interpretation
The following terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. MPEP 2111.
"C-cover" (claims 1 and 11): The specification describes the C-cover as the top portion of the laptop chassis, which houses the keyboard and palm rest area (Spec. ¶¶ [0037], [0050]). An "inlet port disposed on a C-cover of the computing device housing" therefore reads on an opening through which air enters the housing at the keyboard area of the upper surface of the housing base.
"rear portion of the computing device housing" (claims 1 and 11): The specification places the outlet at the rear of the laptop so that warm air is directed out of the laptop and away from the user (Spec. ¶¶ [0054], [00148]). The phrase is read as the portion of the housing base on the side opposite the user, i.e., the side at which the display portion is hinged.
"low-pressure blowers" (claim 5): The specification describes the ionic blower devices of the disclosure as low-pressure blowers (Spec. ¶¶ [0027], [0039]–[0040]). Accordingly, a plurality of ionic air moving devices of the kind described in the specification is a plurality of low-pressure blowers.
"thin-film ionic air-moving device" (claim 15) and "thin-film air-moving device" (claim 8): The specification describes thin air movers integrated into air gaps of the device (Spec. ¶¶ [0030], [0041]). The terms are read as an air mover whose operative electrode and dielectric structures are thin films or layers.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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—
(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.
Claims 1, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jewell-Larsen et al. (US 2011/0292560 A1) (hereinafter "Jewell-Larsen"). Each limitation below is mapped to the laptop-style embodiment of FIGS. 7A–7C and 8A–8B; Jewell-Larsen states that FIG. 8A corresponds generally to a cross-section of FIGS. 7B and 7C (¶ 0040).
Regarding claim 1,
Jewell-Larsen discloses A cooling system for a computing device (thermal management system of laptop-style device 700, FIG. 7A, ¶ 0059), comprising:
a computing device housing (body portion 701A with enclosure 709, FIGS. 7A, 8A, ¶¶ 0059, 0080);
a heat dissipation structure within the computing device housing, the heat dissipation structure configured to absorb heat from a processing device (heat transfer surfaces 720, to which heat pipe 721 transfers heat from CPU 731, FIG. 7C, ¶ 0060; see also ¶ 0048);
an ionic air-moving device configured to generate airflow across the heat dissipation structure to direct heat from the processing device out of the computing device housing (EHD air mover 710, an ion flow fluid mover in which ions generated at emitter electrode 791 motivate air flow, ¶¶ 0005–0006, 0082; EHD air mover 710 motivates air flow over heat transfer surfaces 720, ¶ 0060, and the flow exits the housing as outflow 703, FIGS. 7A–7C, 8A; heat transferred to the motivated flow is exhausted from the enclosure through a ventilation boundary, ¶ 0048); and
an airflow path within the computing device housing, the airflow path including an inlet port disposed on a C-cover of the computing device housing (ventilating inflow 702 drawn through apertures in keyboard assembly 740, FIG. 8A, ¶ 0084; inflow 702 entering at the keyboard area of body portion 701A, FIG. 7A; see Claim Interpretation above) and an outlet port disposed in a rear portion of the computing device housing (outlet 752 and outflow 703 at the edge of body portion 701A at which display portion 701B is joined, FIGS. 7A–7C), the airflow path extending from the inlet port, across the heat dissipation structure, and to the outlet port (inflow 702 passes from the keyboard apertures through EHD air mover 710 and exits as outflow 703, FIG. 8A; heat transfer surfaces 720 lie along outlet 752 downstream of EHD air mover 710, FIG. 7C).
The relative positions of the inlet, mover, heat transfer surfaces and outlet are relied upon as shown in the drawings. See MPEP 2125.
Regarding claim 11,
Jewell-Larsen discloses A method for cooling a computing device (operation of the thermal management system of laptop-style device 700, FIGS. 7A–8A, ¶¶ 0059–0060), the method comprising:
absorbing heat from a processing device at a heat dissipation structure, the processing device and heat dissipation structure disposed within a computing device housing (heat pipe 721 transfers heat from CPU 731 to heat transfer surfaces 720 within body portion 701A, FIG. 7C, ¶ 0060); and
generating airflow at an ionic air-moving device, the airflow directed through an airflow path and across the heat dissipation structure to direct heat from the processing device out of the computing device housing (EHD air mover 710 motivates air flow over heat transfer surfaces 720 and out of the housing as outflow 703, FIGS. 7A–7C, 8A, ¶¶ 0048, 0060, 0082), wherein the airflow path includes an inlet port disposed on a C-cover of the computing device housing and an outlet port disposed in a rear portion of the computing device housing, and wherein the airflow path extends from the inlet port, across the heat dissipation structure, and to the outlet port (see the corresponding limitation of claim 1 above; FIGS. 7A–7C, 8A, ¶ 0084).
Regarding claim 15,
Jewell-Larsen discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the ionic air-moving device includes a thin-film ionic air-moving device (collector electrodes 792 of EHD air mover 710 may be formed as conductive tape or strip affixed to interior surfaces of enclosure 709 and EMI shield 708, ¶¶ 0080–0081, and dielectric surfaces 793 may be provided as a polyimide film or tape, ¶ 0086; the mover may occupy 5 mm or less of the device thickness, ¶ 0059; see Claim Interpretation above).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: (1) determining the scope and contents of the prior art; (2) ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; (3) resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4) considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jewell-Larsen.
Regarding claim 8,
Jewell-Larsen discloses the cooling system of claim 1 as set forth above. The laptop-style embodiment has a single EHD air mover 710, and Jewell-Larsen does not expressly disclose that the system is further including a thin-film air-moving device. Jewell-Larsen teaches, in another embodiment of the same disclosure, providing a second EHD air mover in a single device, bottom-mounted instances 1010A forcing air into the enclosure while top-mounted instances 1010B exhaust air from it (FIG. 11A, ¶ 0062), and teaches forming the operative surfaces of its EHD air movers as conductive tape or strip and polyimide film or tape (¶¶ 0080–0081, 0086). Jewell-Larsen further states that its pad-type, laptop-style and television-style embodiments are merely illustrative and may be adapted to particular form factors (¶ 0063). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide laptop-style device 700 with an additional EHD air mover formed with such film electrodes, because Jewell-Larsen teaches pairing EHD air movers within one enclosure so that one forces air in while another exhausts it (¶ 0062), yielding the predictable result of increased airflow through the enclosure.
Claims 2–4 and 12–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jewell-Larsen in view of Schlitz (US 2006/0169441 A1).
Regarding claim 2,
Jewell-Larsen discloses the cooling system of claim 1 as set forth above, including an exposed electrode in direct contact with air (emitter electrode 791 positioned in the flow channel of EHD air mover 710, FIG. 8A, ¶ 0082). Jewell-Larsen energizes emitter electrode 791 with an illustrative +3.5 kV supply, states that any supply voltage waveform may be a matter of design choice (¶ 0082), and states that ions may be generated by other techniques including AC discharge and dielectric barrier discharge (¶ 0047). Jewell-Larsen does not expressly disclose wherein the ionic air-moving device includes an alternating current (AC) ionic air-moving device or an embedded electrode separated from air by a dielectric material.
Schlitz teaches an EHD electrode arrangement for a laptop cooling system having a first electrode 1202 in the gas gap and a third electrode 1206 covered by a thin polyimide dielectric 1208 (FIGS. 12A–12B, ¶¶ 0066–0067), and teaches driving its EHD electrodes with an alternating (AC) bus potential (¶ 0062) because, under DC operation, surface charge builds up on dielectric surfaces and retards ion formation (¶ 0061). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to drive the EHD air mover of Jewell-Larsen with an AC potential and to include a dielectric-covered electrode as taught by Schlitz, because Jewell-Larsen's own mover relies on dielectric surfaces 793 that accumulate charge during operation (¶ 0083), Schlitz teaches that AC drive prevents such charge from building up on dielectric surfaces (¶¶ 0061–0062), and Jewell-Larsen itself identifies AC discharge and dielectric barrier discharge as suitable ion generation techniques (¶ 0047).
Regarding claim 3,
Jewell-Larsen in view of Schlitz teaches the cooling system of claim 2, wherein the ionic air-moving device is configured to: receive AC current (alternating EHD bus potential, Schlitz ¶ 0062); and generate an electric field to ionize air molecules near the exposed electrode and move ionized air particles toward the embedded electrode (voltage source 1210 causes the gas gap between electrodes 1202 and 1206 to break down, with charge accumulating on dielectric 1208 covering electrode 1206, Schlitz ¶ 0067; ions generated at emitter electrode 791 accelerate downstream in the electric field, Jewell-Larsen ¶ 0082). The rationale set forth for claim 2 applies.
Regarding claim 4,
Jewell-Larsen discloses the cooling system of claim 1 and teaches that an ion flow fluid mover may result in reduced noise generation and improved user experience (¶ 0006), but does not expressly disclose wherein the ionic air-moving device is configured to maintain noise levels below a predetermined threshold during operation. Schlitz teaches that its EHD cooling system can perform similarly to or better than a conventional heat sink and fan system while operating silently (¶ 0014). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the EHD air mover of Jewell-Larsen silently, i.e., below a noise level selected in advance, as taught by Schlitz, because Jewell-Larsen identifies reduced noise as a benefit of ion flow fluid movers that improves user experience (¶ 0006).
Regarding claims 12–14,
Claim 12 recites the electrode limitations of claim 2 for the method of claim 11; claim 13 recites receiving an AC current at the ionic air-moving device and the electric-field step of claim 3; and claim 14 recites maintaining noise levels below a predetermined threshold during operation of the ionic air-moving device. Jewell-Larsen in view of Schlitz teaches these limitations, and the operation of the system so configured performs the recited steps, for the reasons set forth for claims 2–4 above, the method of claim 11 being anticipated by Jewell-Larsen as set forth above.
Claims 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jewell-Larsen in view of June et al. (US 2011/0292593 A1) (hereinafter "June").
Regarding claim 5,
Jewell-Larsen discloses the cooling system of claim 1 as set forth above, but does not expressly disclose in the laptop-style embodiment wherein the ionic air-moving device includes a plurality of low-pressure blowers. June teaches a plurality of ionic air moving devices 30 within a computer chassis, one in each of fluidically parallel airflow zones 40, 41, 42, each independently energized under control of controller 44 (FIG. 1, abstract, ¶¶ 0028–0029); under the Claim Interpretation above, these are low-pressure blowers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ionic air-moving arrangement of Jewell-Larsen as a plurality of independently operable ionic air moving devices as taught by June, because June teaches that doing so permits airflow to each zone of the chassis to be independently enhanced as its heat-generating components require (¶ 0029).
Regarding claim 6,
June further teaches wherein the plurality of low-pressure blowers are arranged in a modular configuration (fan assembly 90 with three fans 92 and corresponding ionic air moving devices, each including an ion emitter electrode assembly 97 and an ion collector 98 coupled to power supply 99 operated by controller 100, establishing airflow zones 93, 94, 95, FIG. 5, ¶ 0036; each zone of FIG. 1 provided with its own ionic air moving device and independently energizable circuit, ¶¶ 0028–0030). The rationale set forth for claim 5 applies.
Regarding claim 7,
Claim 7 recites wherein the modular configuration includes multiple blower modules arranged in a series configuration, a parallel configuration, or a combination of series and parallel configuration, and is met by a teaching of any one of the recited alternatives. June teaches multiple ionic air moving devices arranged in a parallel configuration, each extending across one of a plurality of fluidically parallel airflow zones (abstract, FIGS. 1 and 5, ¶¶ 0028, 0036). The rationale set forth for claim 5 applies.
Claims 9, 10, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jewell-Larsen in view of June and North et al. (US 2019/0239384 A1) (hereinafter "North").
Regarding claim 9,
Jewell-Larsen discloses the cooling system of claim 1 as set forth above, but does not disclose the system further including a centrifugal blower. June teaches operating ionic air moving devices within an airflow already established by a nonionic air moving device 16 so as to enhance airflow through selected zones (FIG. 1, ¶ 0028). North teaches a notebook-type information handling system in which cooling air is circulated through chassis enclosure 105 by a cooling fan 110 that may be a centrifugal blower, e.g., 80 mm × 80 mm × 8 mm (FIG. 1A, ¶¶ 0031, 0035–0036). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the cooling system of Jewell-Larsen a nonionic air mover operating together with the ionic air mover as taught by June, and to select a compact centrifugal blower as that nonionic air mover as taught by North for a notebook chassis, because June teaches that ionic air movers operating alongside a nonionic air mover permit airflow to be enhanced where it is needed (¶¶ 0028–0029), and North teaches a centrifugal blower as a conventional air mover for such a chassis, yielding the predictable result of increased total airflow capacity.
Regarding claim 10,
Jewell-Larsen in view of June and North teaches the cooling system of claim 9, wherein the ionic air-moving device and the centrifugal blower are operated selectively based on cooling demands (June: controller 44 independently engages or disengages the ionic air moving device of each airflow zone based on, e.g., temperature sensors 46, 47, 48 indicating that more airflow is needed, ¶ 0029; North: embedded controller 180 supplies control signals to fan control circuitry 115 for cooling fan 110 based on temperature measurement signals 179 from sensors 191, ¶ 0034, and operates the fan among speed steps including fan off, ¶ 0011). The motivation is that set forth for claim 9, June and North each teaching operation of their air movers according to sensed cooling need (June ¶ 0029; North ¶ 0034).
Regarding claims 16 and 17,
Claim 16 recites the method of claim 11 further including selectively activating a centrifugal blower, and claim 17 recites further including selectively operating the ionic air-moving device and the centrifugal blower based on cooling demands. North teaches selectively activating centrifugal cooling fan 110 through embedded controller 180, which operates the fan among speed steps including fan off (¶¶ 0011, 0034, 0040, 0050), and June and North teach operating the ionic and nonionic air movers based on cooling demands as set forth for claim 10. Jewell-Larsen in view of June and North therefore teaches claims 16 and 17 for the reasons and with the rationale set forth for claims 9 and 10, the method of claim 11 being anticipated by Jewell-Larsen as set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18–20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious the air mover of claim 18, in which the flexible membrane air-moving device includes a diaphragm, a plurality of inlet ports, and a plurality of outlet ports, at least one of the plurality of inlet ports and at least one of the plurality of outlet ports positioned above a plane of the diaphragm, and at least one other one of the plurality of inlet ports and at least one other one of the plurality of outlet ports positioned below the plane of the diaphragm, in combination with an actuator configured to oscillate the diaphragm through an upward stroke and a downward stroke to generate airflow during both the upward stroke and the downward stroke across the heat dissipation structure. Gerlach (US 2011/0024092 A1) discloses a synthetic jet actuator module in which a diaphragm forms one wall of a housing, and in which the jet outlets and any additional inlet openings communicate with a single internal volume on one side of the diaphragm, such that fluid is ejected on one stroke and drawn in on the other (FIGS. 2, 3 and 5, ¶¶ 0017–0019, 0028). Neither Gerlach nor the other prior art of record teaches inlet and outlet ports on both sides of the diaphragm plane with airflow generated across a heat dissipation structure on both strokes, and there is no reason in the record to so modify Gerlach without the benefit of applicant's disclosure. Claims 19 and 20 are allowed by virtue of their dependency from claim 18.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Examiner Zhengfu J. Feng, whose telephone number is 571-272-2949. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 10AM -6PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, JAYPRAKASH GANDHI, can be reached at 571-272-3740. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center.
/ZHENGFU J FENG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
October 14, 2026
