Patent Application 18216503 - ELECTRONICS ENCLOSURE AND EXPANSION CARD WITH - Rejection

Patent Application 18216503 - ELECTRONICS ENCLOSURE AND EXPANSION CARD WITH

Title: ELECTRONICS ENCLOSURE AND EXPANSION CARD WITH COANDA VENT RIBS

Application Information

• Invention Title: ELECTRONICS ENCLOSURE AND EXPANSION CARD WITH COANDA VENT RIBS
• Application Number: 18216503
• Submission Date: 2025-05-12T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2023-06-29T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2023-06-29T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 361
• National Sub-Class: 679020
• Examiner Employee Number: 82834
• Art Unit: 2841
• Tech Center: 2800

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 1
• 103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

    DETAILED ACTION
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.

Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 10-13, 15-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho (9,547,343).
Regarding Claim 1: Cho teaches a support bracket for an expansion card (figs. 1-12), the support bracket comprising: a bracket (24) having an elongated body extending between a first end and a second end (figs. 1-4), the first end having an insertion tab (50), the second end having a mounting tab (48) formed at an angle relative to a plane of the body (figs. 1-4), the elongated body having a first surface and a second surface facing away from the first surface (figs. 1-4); a plurality of vent openings (44) formed through the elongated body (figs. 1-4); and a rib (formed by 36 in figs. 1-4) separating two of the vent openings (figs. 1-4), the rib having an airflow enhancing sectional area (figs. 1-4).
Regarding Claim 5: Cho teaches wherein the airflow enhancing sectional area of the rib has a chord that is longer than a thickness of the rib (edges shown in figs. 1-4).
Regarding Claim 6: Cho teaches wherein the chord is perpendicular to the first surface of the body (edges shown in figs. 1-4).
Regarding Claim 7: Cho teaches wherein the chord is not perpendicular to the first surface of the body (edges shown in (edges shown in figs. 1-4).
Regarding Claim 8: Cho teaches wherein a portion the rib extends beyond the first and/or second surface of the body (figs. 1-4).
Regarding Claim 10: Cho teaches wherein the airflow enhancing sectional area of the rib is formed by cold working (figs. 1-4, this is the process by which the product is being made wherein MPEP 2113 states "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product 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 process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Regarding Claim 11: Cho teaches wherein the airflow enhancing sectional area of the rib is formed after forming the rib by stamping (figs. 1-4, this is the process by which the product is being made wherein MPEP 2113 states "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product 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 process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Regarding Claim 12: Cho teaches wherein the body is formed by stamping, casting, forging, 3-D printing, die casting, injection molding, among other techniques (figs. 1-4, this is the process by which the product is being made wherein MPEP 2113 states "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product 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 process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Regarding Claim 13: Cho teaches an expansion card (figs. 1-12) comprising: a printed circuit board (PCB) (12); sockets disposed on the PCB (see figs. 1-2); electronics disposed on the PCB and coupled to the sockets (see figs. 1-2); and a bracket (24) coupled to the PCB (figs. 1-4), the bracket having communication port openings accepting the socket (figs. 1-4), the bracket further comprising: an elongated body extending between a first end and a second end (figs. 1-4), the first end having an insertion tab (50), the second end having a mounting tab (48) formed at an angle relative to a plane of the body (figs. 1-4), the elongated body having a first surface (figs. 1-4) and a second surface (figs. 1-4) facing away from the first surface (figs. 1-4); a plurality of vent openings (44) formed through the elongated body (figs. 1-4); and a rib (formed by 36 shown in figs. 1-4) separating two of the vent openings (figs. 1-4), the rib having an airflow enhancing sectional area (figs. 1-4).
Regarding Claim 15:  Cho teaches wherein the airflow enhancing sectional area of the rib has a chord that is longer than a thickness of the rib (edges shown in figs. 1-4).
Regarding Claim 16: Cho teaches wherein a portion the rib extends beyond the first and/or second surface of the body (figs. 1-4).
Regarding Claim 18: Cho teaches wherein the body of the bracket is metal (col. 7 lines 1-14).
Regarding Claim 19: Cho teaches wherein the printed circuit board is configured as an audio card, a sound card, a video card, a network interface card, a serial and parallel cards, a USB expansion card, a Firewire card, a storage card, a modem card, a wireless card, a cellular card, a TV tuner card, or a video capture card (col. 4 lines 57-67).
Regarding Claim 20: Cho teaches a method for forming an expansion card bracket (figs. 1-12), the method comprising: forming openings (figs. 1-4) in a metal blank (figs. 1-3 and col. 7 lines 1-14), adjacent ones of the openings separated by an initial rib (formed by 36 in figs. 1-4); and rotating legs (figs. 3a-12) of the initial rib to a parallel orientation to form a rib separating two adjacent openings (figs. 3a-12).

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.

Claim(s) 2-4, 9, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (9,547,343) as applied to the claims above.
Regarding Claim 2: Cho lacks a specific teaching of wherein the airflow enhancing sectional area of the rib has a radius on a first surface side of the rib that is at least 25 percent of a material thickness of the rib.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Cho by having the airflow enhancing sectional area of the rib has a radius on a first surface side of the rib that is at least 25 percent of a material thickness of the rib in order to allow for an increased air flow through the bracket which allows for better more efficient heat dissipation from the PCB of the apparatus and in turn decreases the chances of the components overheating and becoming damaged which would lead to repair or replacement of the internal components or the apparatus. This would be accomplished merely by changing slightly the shape of the already disclosed elements of the prior art wherein it has been held that such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47. 
Regarding Claim 3: Cho lacks a specific teaching of wherein the airflow enhancing sectional area of the rib has a radius on a second surface side of the rib that is at least 25 percent of the thickness of the rib.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Cho by having the airflow enhancing sectional area of the rib has a radius on a second surface side of the rib that is at least 25 percent of the thickness of the rib in order to allow for an increased air flow through the bracket which allows for better more efficient heat dissipation from the PCB of the apparatus and in turn decreases the chances of the components overheating and becoming damaged which would lead to repair or replacement of the internal components or the apparatus. This would be accomplished merely by changing slightly the shape of the already disclosed elements of the prior art wherein it has been held that such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding Claim 4: Cho lacks a specific teaching of wherein the airflow enhancing sectional area of the rib has a full radius on a first surface side of the rib.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Cho by having the airflow enhancing sectional area of the rib has a full radius on a first surface side of the rib in order to allow for an increased air flow through the bracket which allows for better more efficient heat dissipation from the PCB of the apparatus and in turn decreases the chances of the components overheating and becoming damaged which would lead to repair or replacement of the internal components or the apparatus. This would be accomplished merely by changing slightly the shape of the already disclosed elements of the prior art wherein it has been held that such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding Claim 9: Cho lacks a specific teaching of wherein the airflow enhancing sectional area of the rib includes a fold.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Cho by having the airflow enhancing sectional area of the rib includes a fold in order to allow for an increased air flow through the bracket which allows for better more efficient heat dissipation from the PCB of the apparatus and in turn decreases the chances of the components overheating and becoming damaged which would lead to repair or replacement of the internal components or the apparatus. This would be accomplished merely by changing slightly the shape of the already disclosed elements of the prior art wherein it has been held that such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding Claim 14: Cho lacks a specific teaching of wherein the airflow enhancing sectional area of the rib has a radius on a first surface side of the rib that is at least 25 percent of a material thickness of the rib.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Cho by having the airflow enhancing sectional area of the rib has a radius on a first surface side of the rib that is at least 25 percent of a material thickness of the rib in order to allow for an increased air flow through the bracket which allows for better more efficient heat dissipation from the PCB of the apparatus and in turn decreases the chances of the components overheating and becoming damaged which would lead to repair or replacement of the internal components or the apparatus. This would be accomplished merely by changing slightly the shape of the already disclosed elements of the prior art wherein it has been held that such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding Claim 17: Cho lacks a specific teaching of wherein the airflow enhancing sectional area of the rib includes a fold.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Cho by having the airflow enhancing sectional area of the rib includes a fold in order to allow for an increased air flow through the bracket which allows for better more efficient heat dissipation from the PCB of the apparatus and in turn decreases the chances of the components overheating and becoming damaged which would lead to repair or replacement of the internal components or the apparatus. This would be accomplished merely by changing slightly the shape of the already disclosed elements of the prior art wherein it has been held that such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47.

Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY MICHAEL HAUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-9087. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.




/ANTHONY M HAUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841