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 § 102
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 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carl, JR. et al. (US 2013/0044430 A1).
Re. claims 1 and 10: Carl discloses an electronic device (10) comprising:
an electronic unit (26, 28); (see fig. 1; para. 0004)
two airflow generating units (34, 124) disposed with respect to the electronic unit; and (see fig. 1, 2; para. 0004, 0022-0024)
an airflow guiding mechanism (110) disposed between the electronic unit and the two airflow generating units,
the airflow guiding mechanism comprising:
a casing (168, 178, 180, 182); and (see fig. 3, 4; para. 0030-0034)
an airflow guiding member (218) rotatably disposed in the casing, the airflow guiding member being able to rotate between a first position (right side position) and a second position (center position); (see fig. 9; para. 0037)
wherein, when the airflow guiding member is located at the first position, the airflow guiding member separates two airflow passages (blocks passage containing 124c from passage containing 124d) at opposite sides of the airflow guiding member from each other; (see fig. 9; para. 0036-0037)
when the airflow guiding member is located at the second position (centered position), the two airflow passages (air from passage containing 124a combined with air from passage containing 124b) communicate with each other. (see fig. 9; para. 0036-0037)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carl, JR. et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heard (US 6,680,847 B2).
Re. claims 9 and 18: Carl fails to disclose:
a porous structure disposed at an air inlet side of the casing between the electronic unit and the casing.
However, Heard discloses:
An airflow guiding mechanism (100) comprising:
a porous structure (102, 103) disposed at an air inlet side of the casing between the electronic unit and the casing. (see fig. 1, 3; col. 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a porous aluminum vent structure at an inlet side of the casing of Carl as taught by Herd. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to provide electromagnetic interference suppression for the casing. (Herd col. 1)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 and 11-17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re. claims 2 and 11: the limitations of “wherein the airflow guiding member comprises … a first blade and two second blades, the rotating shaft is pivotally connected to the casing, the first blade and the two second blades extend from the rotating shaft” in combination with the remaining limitations in the claim cannot be found in the prior art. The first blade and two second blades are not taught by the prior art. Only a single blade or a first blade and a second blade are taught by the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li (US 6,478,082 B1) discloses a porous vent structure in a air inlet side of a casing. Gatti (US 6,181,557 B1) discloses a rotating shaft with a first blade and a second blade in an airflow guiding mechanism.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM B DRAVININKAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9a-6p MT.
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 (JP) N 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.
September 19, 2026
/ADAM B DRAVININKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights