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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 directed to a phone having an air flow generating device in the reply filed on July 16, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it would not require a serious burden to examine all the Species. This is not found persuasive because each of the inventions represented by the different species requires a different field of search. Further, the applicant’s reasoning is not a proper traversal to an Election of Species requirement which requires an admission that the various species are obvious variants or clearly admit this on the record.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lo et al (USPAP 2023/0209241) .
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
With regards to claim 1 Lo et al disclose an airflow generating device (see Figs. 1, 11 & 12 at least), comprising: a first flap (112(110)) and a second flap (114(110)), wherein the first flap and the second flap are opposite to each other in a top view viewing along a top-view direction (see Fig. 11); a first actuator (122(120)) disposed on the first flap and a second actuator (124(120)) disposed on the second flap; and an anchor structure (see the bodies 140 at the opposite outside ends on the flaps in Figs. 11 & 12); wherein the first flap comprises a first anchored edge (AE1(AE)) anchored on the anchor structure, and the first flap comprises first free edges (130C, 130d, 130e, FE1 in Fig. 11) other than the first anchored edge which are non-anchored; wherein the second flap comprises a second anchored edge (AE2(AE)) anchored on the anchor structure, and the second flap comprises second free edges(130a, 130b, FE2 in Fig. 11) other than the second anchored edge which are non-anchored.
With regards to claim 24 Lo et al disclose an electronic device (see Figs. 1 & 7), comprising: the airflow generating device of claim 1 (see Fig. 1 and the above rejection of claim 1); wherein a flow channel (from HO2 to HO1 in Fig. 1) is formed within the electronic device (this is a broad limitation and the actuators 122, 124 of Fig. 1 are electronic making the full device an electronic device and Fig. 7 also discloses an electronic device).
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.
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.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 2-9 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xi et al (USPAP 2022/0312631) in view of Lo et al.
With regards to claim 2, Xi et al disclose a phone (see [0014]) having an airflow generating device (see 140, labeled in annotated Fig. 2 below) but does not disclose that the airflow generating device is constructed as set forth in claim 1. As set forth in the above Lo et al disclose an airflow generating device for creating an airflow in a flow channel of an electronic device.
At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the airflow generating device as taught by Lo et al for the airflow generating device of Xi et al since each of these airflow generating devices are recognized as equivalence for their use in the airflow generation art in a low profile air channel and selection of either of these known equivalents to create an airflow would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06).
PNG
media_image1.png
259
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 3, Xi et al in view of Lo et al disclose the phone as set forth in claim 2 and Xi et al additionally teach of the phone comprising: a flow guide (labeled in the annotated figure above) configured to guide or direct an airflow (see the arrows in Fig. 2) toward or through a flow channel (labeled in the annotated figure above); wherein the airflow is generated by the airflow generating device and flows through the flow channel (clearly understood from Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 4, Xi et al in view of Lo et al disclose the phone as set forth in claim 3 and Xi et al additionally Xi et al teach of the phone comprising a sub-guiding structure (labeled in the annotated figure above).
With regards to claim 5, Xi et al in view of Lo et al disclose the phone as set forth in claim 4 and Xi et al additionally Xi et al teach wherein the sub-guiding structure comprises a ramped section (labeled in the annotated figure above); wherein the ramped section is configured to guide or direct the airflow toward the flow channel (as shown in Fig. 2 the airflow from the ramped section is directed to the downstream portion of the flow channel which enters and exits the airflow generating device).
With regards to claim 6, Xi et al in view of Lo et al disclose the phone as set forth in claim 3 and Xi et al additionally teach of the phone comprising a heat spreading component (122, labeled in the annotated figure above), disposed by the flow channel (as shown in Fig. 2 a portion of the flow channel is directly below the heat spreading component); wherein the airflow flows through the flow channel and removes a heat away from the heat spreading component (see abstract).
With regards to claim 7, Xi et al in view of Lo et al disclose the phone as set forth in claim 6 and Xi et al additionally teach wherein the heat spreading component comprises a vapor chamber (labeled in the annotated Fig. above and located between the heat spreading device and the airflow generating device).
With regards to claim 8, Xi et al in view of Lo et al disclose the phone as set forth in claim 2 and Xi et al additionally teach of the phone comprising: a back cover (labeled in the annotated figure above); wherein an inlet 113, labeled in the annotated figure) is formed on the back cover and the outlet is formed on a side of the phone. The Examiner gives official notice the phones having an outlet in the back cover are well-known and that at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to locate or move the outlet to the back cover as a well-known outlet location as desired or required for a particular application. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art; see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that the instant applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
With regards to claim 9, Xi et al in view of Lo et al disclose the phone as set forth in claim 1 wherein the inlet (113) and the outlet (144) are connected to a flow channel formed within the phone (clearly shown in the annotated figure above).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xi et al in view of Lo et al as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Liao et al (USPAP 2018/0240734).
As set forth above Xi et al in view of Lo et al disclose the phone substantially as claimed but do not disclose that there are a plurality of fin-type structures and that the airflow flows through the flow channel and the fin-type structures. Liao et al discloses a similar electronic device as shown in fig. 3 that has fin-type structures 25a located within a flow channel where airflow from the airflow generating device 21 flows.
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to provide fin-type structures, as taught by Liao et al, in the flow channel of Xi et al in order to increase the heat exchange and cooling ability of the cooling system of Xi et al.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,546,303. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations set forth in claim 1 of the instant application are present in claim 13 of the ‘303 patent but claim 1 has broadened the claimed “air pump” in the preamble of claim 13 in the patent to be an “airflow generating device” in claim 1 of the instant application. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art having possession of the device set forth in claim 13 of the patent would also have possession of claim 1 in the instant application.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee discloses a phone having an airflow generating device mounted therein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469)295-9278. 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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
CGF
August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights