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 .
Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.05.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/12/2025 has been fully considered and is attached hereto.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5, 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites, “the plurality of fans is arranged” which appears to be incorrect. It appears it should be changed to read, “the plurality of fans are arranged”.
Claim 17 recites, “a cables” which appears to be incorrect. It appears it should be changed to read, “cables”.
Claims 4-5 are also objected to since they depend from claim 3 and thus inherit the deficiency therein.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhong et al. (US 2024/0015937 – hereinafter, “Zhong”).
With respect to claim 1, Zhong teaches (In Figs 1-2) a heat dissipation device comprising: a case (8) comprising a first wall (See Fig A below), a second wall (See Fig A below) and an accommodation cavity (S, see Fig 1), wherein the accommodation cavity is located between the first wall and the second wall in a first direction (See Fig 1), the first wall defines a plurality of first through holes (See Fig A below), the second wall defines a plurality of second through holes (See Fig A below), each of the plurality of first through holes is connected to the accommodation cavity (See Figs 1, A, the first through holes are open to the accommodation cavity S), each of the plurality of second through holes is connected to the accommodation cavity (See Figs 1, A, the second through holes are open to the accommodation cavity S); and a fan module (2) mounted in the accommodation cavity (S, see Fig 1), the fan module comprising a bracket assembly (1) and a plurality of fans (F, ¶ 0021, “In one embodiment, one fan cage 1 may accommodate a plurality of fans F arranged in an array of 2×1”), wherein the bracket assembly is detachably connected to the plurality of fans (¶0053), the bracket assembly is detachably connected to the case (8, ¶0053).
PNG
media_image1.png
541
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7, Zhong teaches (In Figs 1-2) a computer device (¶ 0020, “electronic device 9 may be…a computer host”) comprising: a heat dissipation device (2), the heat dissipation device comprising: a case (8) comprising a first wall (See Fig A above), a second wall (See Fig A above) and an accommodation cavity (S, see Fig 1), wherein the accommodation cavity is located between the first wall and the second wall in a first direction (See Fig 1), the first wall defines a plurality of first through holes (See Fig A above), the second wall defines a plurality of second through holes (See Fig A above), each of the plurality of first through holes is connected to the accommodation cavity (See Figs 1, A, the first through holes are open to the accommodation cavity S), each of the plurality of second through holes is connected to the accommodation cavity (See Figs 1, A, the second through holes are open to the accommodation cavity S); and a fan module (2) mounted in the accommodation cavity (S, see Fig 1), the fan module comprising a bracket assembly (1) and a plurality of fans (F, ¶ 0021, “In one embodiment, one fan cage 1 may accommodate a plurality of fans F arranged in an array of 2×1”), wherein the bracket assembly is detachably connected to the plurality of fans (¶0053), the bracket assembly is detachably connected to the case (8, ¶0053).
With respect to claim 13, Zhong teaches (In Figs 1-2) a computer device (¶ 0020, “electronic device 9 may be…a computer host”) comprising: a case (8) comprising a first shell (See Fig A above) and a second shell (See Fig A above), wherein the first shell and the second shell are clamped to form an accommodation cavity (S, where, even though the claims are limited and defined by the recited process, the determination of patentability of the product is based on the product itself, and does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process1. Accordingly, since Zhong discloses the same first and second shells which form an accommodation cavity, the fact that they are claimed as being clamped together provides little patentable weight) and a fan module (2) mounted in the accommodation cavity (See Fig 1), the fan module comprising a bracket assembly (1) and a plurality of fans (F), the bracket assembly comprising a first bracket (20) and a second bracket (10), wherein the first bracket is detachably connected to each of the plurality of fans, the second bracket is detachably connected to each of the plurality of fans, the first shell is detachably connected to the first bracket, the second shell is detachably connected to the second bracket (See: ¶ 0053 which discloses that the fan module (2) is detachable attached to the case and to the fans).
With respect to claim 14, Zhong further teaches wherein the case comprises a first wall and a second wall (See Fig A above), the accommodation cavity (S) is located between the first wall and the second wall in a first direction (See Fig A above), the first wall defines a plurality of first through holes (See Fig A above), the second wall defines a plurality of second through holes (See Fig A above), each of the plurality of first through holes connected to the accommodation cavity, each of the plurality of second through holes connected to the accommodation cavity (See Figs 1 and A).
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.
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.
Claims 2, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong in view of Zhong et al. (US 11,604,498 – hereinafter, “Zhong-498”).
With respect to claims 2, 8, and 15, Zhong teaches the limitations of claims 1, 7, and 13, respectively, as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the bracket assembly defines a first protrusion, and each of the plurality of fans defines a first concave, wherein at least a part of the first protrusion is located in the first concave; or the bracket assembly defines a first concave, and each of the plurality of fans defines a first protrusion, wherein at least a part of the first protrusion is located in the first concave.
Zhong-498, however, teaches a bracket assembly (10) which defines a first protrusion (17), and a fan (91) which defines a first concave (MH), wherein at least a part of the first protrusion is located in the first concave (Col. 4, l. 64 – Col. 5, l. 1, “in this embodiment, the front plate portion 11 of the cage body 10 has a plurality of positioning posts 17 on an inner surface thereof, the positioning posts 17 are respectively configured to be inserted into mount holes MH at corners of the first fan 91”); or the bracket assembly defines a first concave, and each of the plurality of fans defines a first protrusion, wherein at least a part of the first protrusion is located in the first concave.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhong-498 with that of Zhong such that, in Zhong, the bracket assembly defines a first protrusion, and each of the plurality of fans defines a first concave, wherein at least a part of the first protrusion is located in the first concave; or the bracket assembly defines a first concave, and each of the plurality of fans defines a first protrusion, wherein at least a part of the first protrusion is located in the first concave, as taught by Zhong-498, since doing so would secure the first fan relative to the bracket assembly (Zhong-498 Col. 5, ll. 1-2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 9-12, 16-19 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.
With respect to claims 3-5, the allowability resides in the overall structure of the device as recited in dependent claim 3 and at least in part because claim 3 recites, “wherein the plurality of fans is arranged in a second direction, the second direction and the first direction are perpendicular to each other; the bracket assembly comprises a first bracket and a second bracket, the first bracket and the second bracket are arranged in a third direction, the first bracket is detachably connected to each of the plurality of fans, the second bracket is detachably connected to each of the plurality of fans, the third direction and the first direction are perpendicular to each other, and the third direction and the second direction are perpendicular to each other”.
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of claim 3 are believed to render said claim 3 and all claims dependent therefrom patentable over the art of record.
While Zhong teaches many of the limitations of claim 3 as per the above rejection to claim 1, neither Zhong nor any other art of record – either alone or in combination – teach or suggest the above-mentioned limitations of claim 3.
With respect to claim 6, the allowability resides in the overall structure of the device as recited in dependent claim 6 and at least in part because claim 6 recites, “wherein the case further comprises a first shell and a second shell, the first shell and the second shell are arranged in a third direction, the third direction and the first direction are perpendicular to each other; the first shell comprises a first side wall and a second side wall, the first side wall and the second side wall are arranged in the first direction; the second shell comprises a third side wall and a fourth side wall, the third side wall and the fourth side wall are arranged in the first direction; the first side wall and the third side wall are clamped to form the first wall; the second side wall and the fourth side wall are clamped to form the second wall”.
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of claim 6 are believed to render said claim 6 patentable over the art of record.
While Zhong teaches many of the limitations of claim 6 as per the above rejection to claim 1, neither Zhong nor any other art of record – either alone or in combination – teach or suggest the above-mentioned limitations of claim 6.
With respect to claims 9-11, the allowability resides in the overall structure of the device as recited in dependent claim 9 and at least in part because claim 9 recites, “wherein the plurality of fans are arranged in a second direction, the second direction and the first direction are perpendicular to each other; the bracket assembly comprises a first bracket and a second bracket, the first bracket and the second bracket are arranged in a third direction, the first bracket is detachably connected to each of the plurality of fans, the second bracket is detachably connected to each of the plurality of fans, the third direction and the first direction are perpendicular to each other, and the third direction and the second direction are perpendicular to each other”.
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of claim 9 are believed to render said claim 9 and all claims dependent therefrom patentable over the art of record.
While Zhong teaches many of the limitations of claim 9 as per the above rejection to claim 7, neither Zhong nor any other art of record – either alone or in combination – teach or suggest the above-mentioned limitations of claim 9.
With respect to claim 12, the allowability resides in the overall structure of the device as recited in dependent claim 12 and at least in part because claim 12 recites, “wherein the case further comprises a first shell and a second shell, the first shell and the second shell are arranged in a third direction, the third direction and the first direction are perpendicular to each other; the first shell comprises a first side wall and a second side wall, the first side wall and the second side wall are arranged in the first direction; the second shell comprises a third side wall and a fourth side wall, the third side wall and the fourth side wall are arranged in the first direction; the first side wall and the third side wall are clamped to form the first wall; the second side wall and the fourth side wall are clamped to form the second wall”.
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of claim 12 are believed to render said claim 12 patentable over the art of record.
While Zhong teaches many of the limitations of claim 12 as per the above rejection to claim 7, neither Zhong nor any other art of record – either alone or in combination – teach or suggest the above-mentioned limitations of claim 12.
With respect to claims 16-17, the allowability resides in the overall structure of the device as recited in dependent claim 16 and at least in part because claim 16 recites, “wherein the plurality of fans are arranged along a second direction, the second direction and the first direction are perpendicular to each other; the first bracket and the second bracket are arranged along a third direction, the third direction and the first direction are perpendicular to each other, and the third direction and the second direction are perpendicular to each other”.
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of claim 16 are believed to render said claim 16 and all claims dependent therefrom patentable over the art of record.
While Zhong teaches many of the limitations of claim 16 as per the above rejection to claim 13, neither Zhong nor any other art of record – either alone or in combination – teach or suggest the above-mentioned limitations of claim 16.
With respect to claim 18, the allowability resides in the overall structure of the device as recited in dependent claim 18 and at least in part because claim 18 recites, “wherein the case further comprises a third wall and a fourth wall, the third wall and the fourth wall are arranged in the third direction, the third wall and the fourth wall are respectively connected to the first wall and the second wall, the third wall defines a third through hole, the fourth wall defines a fourth through hole; the first bracket comprises a third protrusion, wherein at least a part of the third protrusion is located in the third through hole; the second bracket comprises a fourth protrusion, wherein at least a part of the fourth protrusion is located in the fourth through hole”.
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of claim 18 are believed to render said claim 18 patentable over the art of record.
While Zhong teaches many of the limitations of claim 18 as per the above rejection to claim 14, neither Zhong nor any other art of record – either alone or in combination – teach or suggest the above-mentioned limitations of claim 18.
With respect to claim 19, the allowability resides in the overall structure of the device as recited in dependent claim 19 and at least in part because claim 19 recites, “wherein the first shell and the second shell are arranged in a third direction, the third direction and the first direction are perpendicular to each other; the first shell comprises a first side wall and a second side wall, the first side wall and the second side wall are arranged in the first direction; the second shell comprises a third side wall and a fourth side wall, the third side wall and the fourth side wall are arranged in the first direction; the first side wall and the third side wall are clamped to form the first wall; the second side wall and the fourth side wall are clamped to form the second wall”.
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of claim 19 are believed to render said claim 19 patentable over the art of record.
While Zhong teaches many of the limitations of claim 19 as per the above rejection to claim 13, neither Zhong nor any other art of record – either alone or in combination – teach or suggest the above-mentioned limitations of claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9,565,785 to Tsai which teaches a fan securing device;
US 7,699,692 to Yin which teaches a fan assembly;
US 7,637,717 to Oh et al. which teaches a fan assembly to dampen fan vibration;
US 6,638,016 to Mease et al. which teaches an air mover assembly and method for enclosing an air mover; and
US 5,186,605 to Tracy which teaches a computer cooling fan vibration isolation apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M PAPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am - 6pm EST.
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.
/ZACHARY PAPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
1 In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
