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
Claims 8-12 and 14-18 remain withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Feng et al. (CN 108698703 A, hereinafter Feng) in view of Yin et al. (CN 209684001 U, hereinafter Yin) and Moriya (JP 2002257552 A).
As to claim 1, Feng teaches an inertial measurement module, comprising:
a mount 212;
a circuit board 221, mounted (at least indirectly) to a surface (upward facing surface in fig. 4) of the mount;
an inertial measurement assembly 222, 224, comprising a thermal resistor 224 (¶37) and an inertial measurement unit 222 (¶37), wherein the thermal resistor and the inertial measurement unit are spaced apart on the circuit board (fig. 5);
a thermally conductive member 213, mounted to the circuit board and configured to abut against the thermal resistor and the inertial measurement unit, so that heat generated by the thermal resistor is transferred to the inertial measurement unit (¶38); and
a counterweight assembly 211, mounted to the surface of the mount (¶35), wherein a first groove (comprising cavity 2110 – fig. 5) is arranged on an end surface of the counterweight assembly facing the mount, a receiving space (comprising cavity 2110 – fig. 5) is formed by the first groove and the surface of the mount (i.e. the “surface of the mount” recited above; this is the surface of the mount 212 facing downward in fig. 5 and upward in fig. 4), the thermally conductive member and the inertial measurement assembly are both received in the receiving space (¶30 teaches that the receiving space between the mount 212 and counterweight assembly 211 receives the thermally conductive member and the inertial measurement assembly; ¶30, ¶35 and figs. 4-5 show that the upper and lower shells 211-212 are assembled together with the thermally conductive member and the inertial measurement assembly between them), and the thermally conductive member is arranged at a preset distance (which includes at least the thickness of the board 221 in fig. 5) from a bottom of the first groove,
wherein a protruding frame is arranged on the surface of the mount (¶30 teaches that the sensor module is fixed in the receiving cavity 2110 and wherein the receiving cavity 2110 is partially in the counterweight assembly 211 and partially in the mount 212; accordingly, Feng’s protruding frame comprises at least the walls of the mount 212 forming part of the receiving cavity 2110),
wherein the counterweight assembly comprises a thermally insulative cover 2111 (in the instant specification, lines 15-17 of pg. 8 teach that the thermally insulative cover 51 is made of plastic; similarly, Feng’s thermally insulative cover 2111 is made of plastic, meaning it is thermally insulative - ¶31) and a counterweight block 2112, one end (bottom end in fig. 5) of the thermally insulative cover mates with and is mounted to an end (upper end in fig. 5) of the counterweight block, an other end (upper end in fig. 5) of the thermally insulative cover is mounted to the surface of the mount (i.e. the surface of the mount, being the downward-facing surface in fig. 5), and the first groove (comprising cavity 2110) is arranged on the other end (upper end in fig. 5) of the thermally insulative cover,
wherein the thermally insulative cover is positioned on and mounted to the mount.
Feng does not teach wherein the circuit board is mounted in the protruding frame, and an inner wall of the thermally insulative cover abuts against an outer wall of the protruding frame so that the thermally insulative cover is positioned on and mounted to the mount.
Yin teaches a mount 4 with a protruding frame (formed by at least the walls forming a cavity 4.1 – fig. 1), wherein a circuit board 3 is mounted in the protruding frame (¶31) of the mount.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Feng such that the circuit board is mounted in the protruding frame as taught by Yin since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of mounting the circuit board for another for the predictable result that the circuit board is still successfully supported and protected.
[AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (APS)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
354
346
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Moriya teaches a sensor housing comprising a mount 25 and a cover 30, wherein the mount comprises an annular protruding section APS (fig. 4 above) which assists in mounting the cover to the mount (¶29 teaches that the mount is “fitted” into the opening in the cap), wherein the cover has a flange 32, and wherein an inner wall (at least inside of the flange 32) of the cover abuts against an outer wall of the protruding section APS so that the cover is positioned on and mounted to the mount.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Feng as modified such that the edges of the mount and counterweight assembly that abut each other are configured with an annular protruding section and flange that abut each other, as taught by Moriya, for the benefit that it is more difficult for foreign debris to enter the housing due to the angle formed with the annular protruding frame and flange.
Feng as modified teaches wherein an inner wall (at least inside of the flange 32 of Moriya on the thermally insulative cover of Feng) of the thermally insulative cover abuts against an outer wall (radially outwardly facing wall of the annular protruding section APS of Moriya) of the protruding frame so that the thermally insulative cover is positioned on and mounted to the mount.
As to claim 2, Feng teaches wherein an end surface (bottom end surface in fig. 5) of the thermally conductive member 213 abuts against the thermal resistor, and a side surface adjacent to (i.e. near) the end surface abuts against a side surface of the inertial measurement unit (the “side surface,” at the beginning of line 3 of the claim, is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus; accordingly, a side surface of something that is not part of the claimed apparatus is capable of abutting against the side surface of the inertial measurement unit).
As to claim 7, Feng teaches a shock absorption system, comprising:
an inertial measurement module (described below);
a support 1, configured to be mounted to a fuselage 101 of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) 100 (fig. 8); and
a shock-absorbing connection assembly 3, configured to be connected to the inertial measurement module and the support, wherein
the inertial measurement module comprises:
a mount 212;
a circuit board 221, mounted (at least indirectly) to a surface (upward facing surface in fig. 4) of the mount;
an inertial measurement assembly 222, 224, comprising a thermal resistor 221 and an inertial measurement unit 222, wherein the thermal resistor and the inertial measurement unit are spaced apart on the circuit board (fig. 5);
a thermally conductive member 213, mounted to the circuit board and configured to abut against the thermal resistor and the inertial measurement unit, so that heat generated by the thermal resistor is transferred to the inertial measurement unit (¶38); and
a counterweight assembly 211, mounted to the surface of the mount (¶35), wherein a first groove (comprising cavity 2110 – fig. 5) is arranged on an end surface of the counterweight assembly facing the mount, a receiving space (comprising cavity 2110 – fig. 5) is formed by the first groove and the surface of the mount (i.e. the “surface of the mount” recited above; this is the surface of the mount 212 facing downward in fig. 5 and upward in fig. 4), the thermally conductive member and the inertial measurement assembly are both received in the receiving space (¶30 teaches that the receiving space between the mount 212 and counterweight assembly 211 receives the thermally conductive member and the inertial measurement assembly; ¶30, ¶35 and figs. 4-5 show that the upper and lower shells 211-212 are assembled together with the thermally conductive member and the inertial measurement assembly between them), and the thermally conductive member is arranged at a preset distance (which includes at least the thickness of the board 221 in fig. 5) from a bottom of the first groove,
wherein a protruding frame is arranged on the surface of the mount (¶30 teaches that the sensor module is fixed in the receiving cavity 2110 and wherein the receiving cavity 2110 is partially in the counterweight assembly 211 and partially in the mount 212; accordingly, Feng’s protruding frame comprises at least the walls of the mount 212 forming part of the receiving cavity 2110),
wherein the counterweight assembly comprises a thermally insulative cover 2111 (in the instant specification, lines 15-17 of pg. 8 teach that the thermally insulative cover 51 is made of plastic; similarly, Feng’s thermally insulative cover 2111 is made of plastic, meaning it is thermally insulative - ¶31) and a counterweight block 2112, one end (bottom end in fig. 5) of the thermally insulative cover mates with and is mounted to an end (upper end in fig. 5) of the counterweight block, an other end (upper end in fig. 5) of the thermally insulative cover is mounted to the surface of the mount (i.e. the surface of the mount, being the downward-facing surface in fig. 5), and the first groove (comprising cavity 2110) is arranged on the other end (upper end in fig. 5) of the thermally insulative cover,
wherein the thermally insulative cover is positioned on and mounted to the mount.
Feng does not teach wherein the circuit board is mounted in the protruding frame, and an inner wall of the thermally insulative cover abuts against an outer wall of the protruding frame so that the thermally insulative cover is positioned on and mounted to the mount.
Yin teaches a mount 4 with a protruding frame (formed by at least the walls forming a cavity 4.1 – fig. 1), wherein a circuit board 3 is mounted in the protruding frame (¶31) of the mount.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Feng such that the circuit board is mounted in the protruding frame as taught by Yin since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of mounting the circuit board for another for the predictable result that the circuit board is still successfully supported and protected.
Moriya teaches a sensor housing comprising a mount 25 and a cover 30, wherein the mount comprises an annular protruding section APS (fig. 4 above) which assists in mounting the cover to the mount (¶29 teaches that the mount is “fitted” into the opening in the cap), wherein the cover has a flange 32, and wherein an inner wall (at least inside of the flange 32) of the cover abuts against an outer wall of the protruding section APS so that the cover is positioned on and mounted to the mount.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Feng as modified such that the edges of the mount and counterweight assembly that abut each other are configured with an annular protruding section and flange that abut each other, as taught by Moriya, for the benefit that it is more difficult for foreign debris to enter the housing due to the angle formed with the annular protruding frame and flange.
Feng as modified teaches wherein an inner wall (at least inside of the flange 32 of Moriya on the thermally insulative cover of Feng) of the thermally insulative cover abuts against an outer wall (radially outwardly facing wall of the annular protruding section APS of Moriya) of the protruding frame so that the thermally insulative cover is positioned on and mounted to the mount.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Yin and Moriya as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Feng et al. (US 20170059319 A1, hereinafter Feng2).
As to claim 5, Feng teaches a connection line 223 of the circuit board.
Feng as modified does not teach wherein a first opening is arranged on the protruding frame, a second opening is arranged on the thermally insulative cover, and the first opening and the second opening are respectively configured to communicate an inner space of the protruding frame and the first groove with the outside; and
when the thermally insulative cover is mounted to the mount, the first opening and the second opening are located on a same end and are aligned and form a channel, and the connection line of the circuit board extends out through the channel.
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 4 of Feng2)][AltContent: textbox (O2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (O1)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
574
582
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Feng2 teaches a housing comprising a first shell 401 (analogous to the mount 212 of Feng, with respect to the routing direction of the connection line 403) with a first opening O1 (fig. 4 above) and a second shell 407 with a second opening O2 (fig. 4 above),
when the first shell is mounted to the second shell, the first opening and the second opening are located on a same end and are aligned and form a channel O1-O2, and the connection line 403 of the circuit board (not shown, but located inside assembly 408 - ¶42) extends out through the channel (see ¶40, which teaches that the shells are mated and locked together; fig. 5 shows an example of this in a different embodiment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Feng as modified such that the housing shells enclose the connection line and wherein the connection line is outputted through a channel formed by openings in the first and second shells, as taught by Feng2, so as to provide more protection to the signal line since the housing would provide more coverage for the signal line.
Feng as modified teaches wherein a first opening (forming part of opening O1 of Feng2) is arranged on the protruding frame (which is on the mount 212 of Feng), a second opening O2 (Feng2) is arranged on the thermally insulative cover, and the first opening and the second opening are respectively configured to communicate an inner space of the protruding frame and the first groove with the outside; and
when the thermally insulative cover is mounted to the mount, the first opening and the second opening are located on a same end and are aligned (see fig. 4 of Feng2) and form a channel, and the connection line of the circuit board extends out through the channel (fig. 5 of Feng2 shows a similar example of this configuration).
[AltContent: textbox (OG)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fig. 5 of Feng)][AltContent: textbox (Fig. 4 of Feng)][AltContent: textbox (PB)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
556
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
522
732
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 6, Feng teaches wherein a protruding block BP (fig. 4 above) is arranged on an end (upper side in fig. 4) of the thermally insulative cover 2111, an open groove OG (fig. 5 above) is arranged on an end (upper end in fig. 5) of the counterweight block 2112, and the protruding block is inserted into the open groove, so that the counterweight block is fixedly mounted to the thermally insulative cover (¶31-32 teach that the counterweight block 2112 is coated onto the thermally insulative cover 2111).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 8 that
“1. The Claimed Structural Combination Is Not Taught or Suggested by the Prior Art Independent claims 1 and 7, as previously amended, recite the following structural combination, among other limitations:
(a) a counterweight assembly comprising a thermally insulative cover and a counterweight block, wherein one end of the thermally insulative cover mates with and is mounted to an end of the counterweight block, and the other end of the thermally insulative cover is mounted to the surface of the mount;
(b) a protruding frame arranged on the surface of the mount;
(c) the circuit board is mounted in the protruding frame; and
(d) an inner wall of the thermally insulative cover abuts against an outer wall of the protruding frame, so that the thermally insulative cover is positioned on and mounted to the mount.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the prior art rejections of claims 1 and 7 are proper.
Applicant argues on pg. 9 that the modification of Feng in view of Yin is not a simple substitution because
“This characterization is not supported by the disclosure of either Feng or Yin. In Feng, the circuit board 221 is received within the receiving cavity 2110, which is jointly defined by the mount 212 and the counterweight assembly 211. The thermally conductive member 213, thermal resistor, and the inertial measurement unit are also received within this same cavity. The structural arrangement of Feng is specifically designed so that the thermally conductive member is received within the cavity at a preset distance from the bottom of the first groove, preventing contact between the thermally conductive member and the counterweight assembly. The circuit board's position within this cavity is integral to the thermal management function of Feng's device and is not merely a mounting convention that can be freely substituted.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Applicant failed to provide evidence that Feng teaches that the preset distance is for “preventing contact between the thermally conductive member and the counterweight assembly,” as alleged by Applicant. In fact, Feng does not teach that the preset distance serves such a purpose.
Applicant also failed to cite support in Feng that “The circuit board's position within this cavity is integral to the thermal management function of Feng's device.”
Mere argument by Applicant does not replace evidence where evidence is necessary (see MPEP 2145(1)).
Regarding Feng in view of Yin, Applicant continues to argue on pgs. 9-10 that
“Yin discloses a circuit board mounted in a protruding frame on a mount, but Yin does not disclose a counterweight assembly, a thermally insulative cover, a thermal management receiving space, or any of the thermal management features central to the present claims. Yin's protruding frame serves the sole purpose of mounting and supporting the circuit board. Transplanting Yin's circuit board mounting arrangement into Feng's thermally managed assembly would require restructuring the receiving cavity of Feng in a manner that the Examiner has not articulated, and would risk disrupting the preset distance relationship between the thermally conductive member and the bottom of the first groove that defines the thermal management function of Feng. A modification requiring such nontrivial restructuring cannot be characterized as a simple substitution. See KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The features of “a counterweight assembly, a thermally insulative cover, a thermal management receiving space, or any of the thermal management features” are already taught by Feng.
Furthermore, Feng’s thermal management is provided by thermally conductive component 213, which would be substantially unchanged by the combination of Feng and Yin. Accordingly, the thermal management function of Feng would remain substantially unchanged in the combination of Feng and Yin. The Examiner does not agree that the combination requires the “restructuring” alleged by Applicant. However, even if such restructuring is required, which the Examiner does not admit, it would be within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art and would only require routine experimentation, if any. Additionally, the Examiner does not agree that Feng’s preset distance would be changed. However, even if the preset distance is changed, which the Examiner does not admit, neither reference teaches away from changing the preset distance, meaning the combination is still proper. As to Applicant’s argument that the preset distance relationship in Feng defines the thermal management function of Feng, Applicant failed to cite where Feng teaches that this is the case. Mere argument by Applicant does not replace evidence where evidence is necessary (see MPEP 2145(1)).
As to Applicant’s argument that ‘A modification requiring such nontrivial restructuring cannot be characterized as a simple substitution. See KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007),” Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive for at least the reasons above, and the combination of Feng and Yin is indeed proper.
Regarding Feng in view of Yin, Applicant continues to argue on pg. 10 that
“Furthermore, even assuming the circuit board of Feng were mounted in a protruding frame as taught by Yin, this modification alone would not produce a structure in which the inner wall of the thermally insulative cover abuts the outer wall of the protruding frame to position and mount the thermally insulative cover to the mount. In Yin, there is no thermally insulative cover whose inner wall engages the outer wall of a protruding frame in the manner claimed. Yin's protruding frame receives the circuit board but is not disclosed as a surface against which any cover is positioned or mounted by abutment of inner and outer walls. The modification in view of Yin therefore addresses only one aspect of the claimed combination and does not supply the critical abutment limitation.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The combination of references including Moriya teaches the features cited by Applicant above.
Applicant argues on pg. 10 that “Moriya does not disclose a protruding frame that simultaneously serves to mount the circuit board and to provide an outer wall surface against which the inner wall of a thermally insulative cover of a counterweight assembly abuts for positioning and mounting purposes” and “The structural roles of Moriya's annular protruding section and the protruding frame of the present claims are materially different.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The combination of references already teaches a protruding frame prior to the application of Moriya.
Additionally, Applicant’s argument that “The structural roles of Moriya's annular protruding section and the protruding frame of the present claims are materially different” is not persuasive since the Examiner does not equate Moriya's annular protruding section APS with the claimed protruding frame. Instead, Moriya's annular protruding section APS and the portion of the modified Feng’s protruding frame that contacts the cover are analogous since they both have covers mounted to them, and said portion of the modified Feng is modified to have a protruding section in the manner of Moriya.
Applicant argues on pg. 10 that
“The Examiner's proposed combination therefore requires combining three distinct structural concepts from three separate references, the thermal management cavity of Feng, the circuit board mounting frame of Yin, and the cover-to-mount engagement geometry of Moriya, in a manner that is not directed or suggested by any of the individual references.”
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references is found in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art (see the motivations to combine that are provided in the rejection).
Applicant argues on pg. 10 that
“The claimed combination results in a protruding frame that performs the dual function of mounting the circuit board and engaging the inner wall of the thermally insulative cover to position the counterweight assembly on the mount. This dual functionality is not recognized or suggested anywhere in the cited prior art, either individually or in combination.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The modification in view of Yin results in the protruding frame that performs mounting of the circuit board. The modification in view of Moriya results in a protruding frame that engages the inner wall of the thermally insulative cover to position the counterweight assembly on the mount. Therefore, the combination provides a protruding frame with the dual function cited by Applicant.
In the paragraph bridging pgs. 10-11, Applicant argues that the Examiner relied on impermissible hindsight.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues on pg. 11 that
“The Examiner's rejection of claim 2 relies on Feng's disclosure and observes that the "side surface," at the beginning of line 3 of the claim, is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus. Applicant respectfully notes that the inertial measurement unit is positively recited as a component of the inertial measurement assembly in claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends, and that the side surface of the inertial measurement unit is a physical feature of that positively recited component. The claim language of claim 2 defines the abutment relationship of the thermally conductive member with respect to the inertial measurement unit, a component that is unambiguously part of the claimed apparatus. Furthermore, the Examiner has not identified specific disclosure in Feng that teaches the side-surface abutment geometry of claim 2. Applicant submits that this specific abutment geometry, and its function of reducing stress-induced measurement error, is not taught or suggested by Feng.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The "side surface," at the beginning of line 3 of claim 2 is different from the side surface of the inertial measurement unit recited at the end of line 3. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments regarding the side surface of the inertial measurement unit are not persuasive since they fail to address the basis of the rejection of claim 2, which is that the phrase "side surface" at the beginning of line 3 of claim 2 is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus.
As to claim 2, Feng teaches wherein an end surface (bottom end surface in fig. 5) of the thermally conductive member 213 abuts against the thermal resistor, and a side surface adjacent to (i.e. near) the end surface abuts against a side surface of the inertial measurement unit (the “side surface,” at the beginning of line 3 of the claim, is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus; accordingly, a side surface of something that is not part of the claimed apparatus is capable of abutting against the side surface of the inertial measurement unit).
Accordingly, Feng teaches all of claim 2 and the Examiner sufficiently addressed all the limitations thereof.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., reducing stress-induced measurement error) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues on pgs. 11-12 that claims 2 and 5 are allowable because they depend from claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive since claims 1-2 and 5 are properly rejected.
Applicant argues on pg. 12 that “Neither shell in Feng2 corresponds structurally or functionally to the protruding frame of the present claims, which simultaneously receives the circuit board and provides an outer wall surface against which the thermally insulative cover is positioned. Similarly, neither shell of Feng2 corresponds to the thermally insulative cover of the present claims, which simultaneously performs thermal insulation, counterweight support, and channel formation functions.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. It is not the Examiner’s position that an entire shell in Feng2 corresponds with the mere protruding frame.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The limitation of “an outer wall surface against which the thermally insulative cover is positioned” was addressed by applying the Moriya reference.
¶42 of Feng2 teaches that block 408 comprises sensors and a circuit board. Furthermore, fig. 4 of Feng2 shows that block 408 is mounted to mount 407 with adhesive. Therefore, mount 407 of Feng2 is analogous to the claimed mount, and cover 401 of Feng corresponds with the claimed cover. Feng2’s cover 401 does indeed form a channel O1-O2 with the mount 407.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The features of “thermally insulative cover, which…performs thermal insulation, counterweight support” are addressed by Feng.
Applicant argues on pg. 12 that “The Examiner has not articulated why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Feng2's channel geometry specifically to the protruding frame and thermally insulative cover of the already-modified Feng/Yin/Moriya combination, particularly given the structural complexity of the resulting assembly and the fact that Feng2's channel arises in the context of a generic two-shell enclosure without any of the thermal management features of the present claims. The motivation to combine Feng2 with the Feng/Yin/Moriya combination is therefore inadequately established.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The rejection of claim 5 clearly states “It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Feng as modified such that the housing shells enclose the connection line and wherein the connection line is outputted through a channel formed by openings in the first and second shells, as taught by Feng2, so as to provide more protection to the signal line since the housing would provide more coverage for the signal line.“ This means the Examiner articulated why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Feng2's channel geometry specifically to the protruding frame and thermally insulative cover of the already-modified Feng/Yin/Moriya combination.
Regarding the alleged complexity of the combination, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it particularly more complex to add Feng2’s channel. Regarding Feng2’s alleged lack of thermal management features, Feng2’s mount and cover still function as a mount and cover, and are therefore still analogous to the claimed mount and cover and to Feng’s mount and cover. Accordingly, the combination is proper.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Any alleged thermal management features are already taught by Feng.
The motivation to combine Feng2 with the Feng/Yin/Moriya combination is therefore adequately established.
Applicant argues that claim 6 is allowable for depending from claims 1 and 5.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because claims 1 and 5-6 are properly rejected.
Applicant argues on pg. 12 that “Applicant respectfully submits that pending claims 1-2 and 5-7 are patentable over the cited prior art of Feng, Yin, Moriya, and Feng2 for the reasons set forth above. The claimed combination of a protruding frame on the mount that both receives the circuit board and provides an outer wall surface engaged by the inner wall of the thermally insulative cover of the counterweight assembly, together with the preset distance between the thermally conductive member and the bottom of the first groove, is not taught or suggested by any of the cited references individually or in combination. The Examiner has not articulated adequate motivation, grounded in the references themselves, to arrive at the claimed structural combination without impermissible hindsight. Accordingly, all outstanding rejections should be withdrawn. The drawings objection has been resolved by cancellation of claim 13. Applicant requests favorable reconsideration and allowance of claims 1-2 and 5-7.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Claims 1-2 and 5-7 are all properly rejected. The claimed combination of a protruding frame on the mount that both receives the circuit board and provides an outer wall surface engaged by the inner wall of the thermally insulative cover of the counterweight assembly, together with the preset distance between the thermally conductive member and the bottom of the first groove, is rendered obvious by the cited references in combination.
As to Applicant’s argument that “The Examiner has not articulated adequate motivation, grounded in the references themselves, to arrive at the claimed structural combination without impermissible hindsight.” In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation is found in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art as detailed in the rejections above as applicably detailed in each of the respective modifications above.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights