DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a separately filed document (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is Christopher.Legendre@uspto.gov.
Restriction
Claims 4-6 and 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09 December 2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India on 2024-06-20. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 202421047544 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 29 December 2025 was filed before the mailing date of the first action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is hereby considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, last line, --at least one-- should be added before “heat” (see line 2).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in this Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in this Office action.
There are no limitations deemed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
(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, 2, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cruz et al. (US 10,167,879 - hereafter referred to as Cruz).
In reference to claim 1
Cruz discloses:
An apparatus for airflow management, comprising:
a structure (i.e., the assembly of flap 110 and pivot 128 - Figure 1) attachable to a fan (126), the fan capable of directing a primary airflow (i.e., forward flow) at least one of into or through a cabinet-based device (see Figure 4);
wherein the structure maintains a closed formation (such as for fan 420B in Figure 4) when the fan is not operational (“The cooling system 400 may represent an arrangement/configuration where fans 420A and 420C are operational but fan 420B is not operational (e.g., has failed).” - col.3:ln.66 through col.4:ln.2), the closed formation configured for obstructing a secondary airflow (i.e., a backflow and/or circulation flow) through the fan, the secondary airflow associated with a direction opposite the primary airflow; and
wherein the structure is configured to deploy into an open formation (such as for fan 420A in Figure 4) when the fan is operational, the open formation configured for allowing the primary airflow through the fan.
In reference to claim 2
Cruz discloses:
The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein:
the fan has an inflow side (inherent) and an outflow side opposite the inflow side (inherent);
wherein the primary airflow occurs in a direction (see Figure 4) from the inflow side to the outflow side; and
wherein the structure is attached (see Figure 4) to the outflow side of the fan.
In reference to claim 7
Cruz discloses:
A cabinet-based device (i.e., an electronic system), comprising:
a plurality of fans (420A-420C) at least partially disposed within a cabinet (i.e., the structure formed by walls 499 - Figure 4), the plurality of fans including at least one primary fan (420A) and at least one redundant fan (420B), the at least one redundant fan configured for operation in response to a failure of the at least one primary fan (note: the recitation configured for operation in response to a failure of the at least one primary fan is considered as --when the primary fan is not operating-- in light of Applicant’s disclosure being silent as to any active status-based/sensed control being performed; each fan 420A-420C is capable of operating regardless of the operational status of the other fans),
wherein the plurality of fans is configured to direct a primary airflow (i.e., forward flow) at least one of into or through the cabinet; and
a structure (i.e., the assembly of flap 110 and pivot 128 - Figure 1) attached to at least one fan of the plurality of fans, each structure configured to maintain a closed formation (such as for fan 420B in Figure 4) when the associated fan is not operational (“The cooling system 400 may represent an arrangement/configuration where fans 420A and 420C are operational but fan 420B is not operational (e.g., has failed).” - col.3:ln.66 through col.4:ln.2),
wherein the closed formation is configured for obstructing a secondary airflow (i.e., a backflow and/or circulation flow) through the associated fan, the secondary airflow in a direction opposite that of the primary airflow, and
wherein the structure is configured to deploy into an open formation (such as for fan 420A in Figure 4) when the associated fan is operational, the open formation configured for allowing the primary airflow through the associated fan.
In reference to claim 10
Cruz discloses:
The cabinet-based device of Claim 7, wherein:
each fan has an inflow side (see Figure 4) and an outflow side (see Figure 4), the outflow side opposite the inflow side and associated with an interior of the cabinet;
wherein the primary airflow flows (see Figure 4) from the inflow side to the outflow side; and
wherein each structure is attached (see Figure 4) to the outflow side of the associated fan.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baddour et al. (US 6,031,717 - hereafter referred to as Baddour).
In reference to claim 1
Baddour discloses:
An apparatus for airflow management, comprising:
a structure (12) attachable to a fan (20), the fan capable of directing a primary airflow (AF - Figure 9) at least one of into or through a cabinet-based device (32);
wherein the structure maintains a closed formation (see Figures 1 and 11) when the fan is not operational (“However, due to the presence of the above-described louver members 12 adjacent the fans 20, FIG. 11, the pressure differential between high pressure side 42 and low pressure side 40, will automatically close the louver member 12 adjacent the failed fan 20, to block reverse air flow RAF” - see col.5:ll.10-15), the closed formation configured for obstructing a secondary airflow (RAF - Figure 11) through the fan, the secondary airflow associated with a direction opposite the primary airflow; and
wherein the structure is configured to deploy into an open formation (see Figures 2 and 9) when the fan is operational, the open formation configured for allowing the primary airflow through the fan.
In reference to claim 2
Baddour discloses:
The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein:
the fan has an inflow side (see Figure 9) and an outflow side (see Figure 9) opposite the inflow side;
wherein the primary airflow (AF) occurs in a direction from the inflow side to the outflow side; and
wherein the structure is attached (see Figure 9) to the outflow side of the fan.
In reference to claim 7
Baddour discloses:
A cabinet-based device (see Figure 8), comprising:
a plurality of fans (20 and 41) at least partially disposed within a cabinet (32), the plurality of fans including at least one primary fan (41)(note: the term primary is not structurally limiting) and at least one redundant fan (20)(note: the term redundant is not structurally limiting), the at least one redundant fan configured for operation in response to a failure of the at least one primary fan (note: the recitation configured for operation in response to a failure of the at least one primary fan is considered as --when the primary fan is not operating-- in light of Applicant’s disclosure being silent as to any active status-based/sensed control being performed; the fans 20 are capable of operating regardless of the operational status of fans 41),
wherein the plurality of fans is configured to direct a primary airflow (AF - Figure 11) at least one of into or through the cabinet; and
a structure (12 - see Figures 1 and 2) attached to at least one fan of the plurality of fans, each structure configured to maintain a closed formation (see Figures 1 and 11) when the associated fan is not operational (“However, due to the presence of the above-described louver members 12 adjacent the fans 20, FIG. 11, the pressure differential between high pressure side 42 and low pressure side 40, will automatically close the louver member 12 adjacent the failed fan 20, to block reverse air flow RAF” - see col.5:ll.10-15),
wherein the closed formation is configured for obstructing a secondary airflow (RAF - Figure 11) through the associated fan, the secondary airflow in a direction opposite that of the primary airflow, and
wherein the structure is configured to deploy into an open formation (see Figures 2 and 11) when the associated fan is operational, the open formation configured for allowing the primary airflow through the associated fan.
In reference to claim 9
Baddour discloses:
The cabinet-based device of Claim 7, wherein the structure is attached to the at least one redundant fan (20) only (see Figure 9).
In reference to claim 10
Baddour discloses:
The cabinet-based device of Claim 7, wherein:
each fan has an inflow side (see Figure 9) and an outflow side (see Figure 9), the outflow side opposite the inflow side and associated with an interior of the cabinet;
wherein the primary airflow (AF) flows from the inflow side to the outflow side; and
wherein each structure is attached (see Figure 9) to the outflow side of the associated fan.
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 of this title, 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruz in view of Chiu et al. (US 5,953,209 - hereafter referred to as Chiu).
In reference to claim 8
Cruz discloses:
The cabinet-based device of Claim 7.
Cruz does not disclose:
further comprising:
at least one heat sink;
wherein the primary airflow into or through the cabinet-based device is directed at least one of over or through the heat sink.
Chiu discloses:
an electronic device comprising fans (20,22) that direct air at a heat sink (12) in order to cool a heat-generating component (24 & 28) of the device.
Cruz further discloses (see col.1:ll.6-11) that the device is an electronic system (which has heat-generating components).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cruz to include a heat sink that is cooled by the primary airflow, as disclosed by Chiu, for the purpose of maintaining safe operating temperature in order to maximize performance of the electronic system
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baddour in view of Chiu.
In reference to claim 8
Baddour discloses:
The cabinet-based device of Claim 7.
Baddour does not disclose:
further comprising:
at least one heat sink;
wherein the primary airflow into or through the cabinet-based device is directed at least one of over or through the heat sink.
Chiu discloses:
an electronic device comprising fans (20,22) that direct air at a heat sink (12) in order to cool a heat-generating component (24 & 28) of the device.
Baddour further discloses (see col.1:ll.5-7) that the device is a computer system (which has heat-generating components).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Baddour to include a heat sink that is cooled by the primary airflow, as disclosed by Chiu, for the purpose of maintaining safe operating temperature in order to maximize performance of the computer system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 11 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.
Citations of Pertinent Art
The following art is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
All cited references disclose a fan or a fan system comprising a shutter for obstructing flow through the fan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone number is (571)270-3364. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9-5 PM ET.
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 Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711