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 .
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, 21-23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 6,337,550).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi et al. (hereinafter Takahashi) teaches an electronic device, comprising: a circuit board 4 having a signal detection terminal disposed on a first surface (top) of the circuit board and a ground terminal disposed on a second surface of the circuit board, wherein the first surface and the second surface are opposite each other in a thickness direction of the circuit board (Figs. 8-9); a monitoring terminal (the other electrode 12 that is not grounded) connected with the signal detection terminal (connection to reference numeral 16 (col. 4 lines 16-20)); and a microcontroller unit (6 or 8) (MCU) determining whether there is submersion by monitoring a voltage at the monitoring terminal (col. 4 lines 10-15) (col. 5 lines 1-8).
Takahashi remains silent as to a ground terminal disposed on a second surface of the circuit board but teaches that “the control circuit board 4 is provided with two penetrating holes 15 in such a way that the electrodes 12a are inserted through the holes 15 such that the electrodes are fixed on the board 4 with the plate 13 soldered on the board 4” (col. 6 lines 56-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have soldered the electrodes from the other surface of the board (opposite the plate 13) as it would be the easiest and most common way of soldering. Doing so would create a ground terminal with where the grounded electrode is soldered to the board with traces or other connections to a ground.
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the signal detection terminal and the ground terminal (12a) are positioned opposite each other in the thickness direction of the circuit board 4 (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 21, Takahashi teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the ground terminal 12a and the signal detection terminal are aligned with each other in the thickness direction of the circuit board 4 (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 22, Takahashi, as rejected in claim 1, teaches an electronic device, comprising: a circuit board 4 having a signal detection terminal 12a disposed on a first surface of the circuit board 4 (Fig. 8), wherein the first surface and a second surface (surface of the plate 13) of the circuit board are opposite each other in a thickness direction of the circuit board (Fig. 8); a housing (the vehicle in Fig. 4) receiving the circuit board 4 and connected to a ground (all motor vehicles have a “ground”); a monitoring terminal connected with the signal detection terminal (col. 4 lines 16-20); and a microcontroller unit (MCU) configured to determine submersion by monitoring a voltage of the monitoring terminal (col. 4 lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 23, Takahashi teaches the electronic device of claim 22, wherein the second surface of the circuit board 4 is free of a ground terminal. The circuit board 4 has several surfaces that are free of the ground terminal (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 25, Takahashi teaches a method for operating an electronic device including a circuit board 4 having a signal detection terminal 12a disposed on a first surface of the circuit board 4 (top surface of circuit board 4 in Fig. 8) and a ground terminal disposed on a second surface of the circuit board 4 (the grounded electrode extends into the circuit board 4, which contacts surfaces), wherein the first surface and the second surface are opposite each other in a thickness direction of the circuit board (Figs. 8 and 9), a monitoring terminal (the other electrode, not grounded) connected with the signal detection terminal (col. 4 lines 16-21), and a microcontroller unit (MCU) connected with the monitoring terminal (col. 5 lines 1-8), the method comprising: monitoring a voltage at the monitoring terminal; comparing the voltage at the monitoring terminal with a normal state voltage; and determining whether there is submersion from a comparison result (col. 7 lines 14-25).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 21, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terutaka (JP 3793360).
Regarding claim 1, Terutaka teaches an electronic device, comprising: a circuit board 30 having a signal detection terminal 181/182 disposed on a first surface (Fig. 3(a) of the circuit board 30 and a ground terminal 185 disposed on a second surface (Fig. 3(b)) of the circuit board 30 (while the ground terminal 185 is not shown in Fig. 3(b), it is part of the detection circuit 183 of Fig. 2. which includes the ground terminal 185. It is clear that this ground terminal must connect to a contact on the circuit board 30, therefore there would be a ground terminal on that surface (Fig. 3(b)) of the circuit board), wherein the first surface and the second surface are opposite each other in a thickness direction of the circuit board 30 (Fig. 3(c)); a monitoring terminal 186 connected with the signal detection terminal 181/182 and determining whether there is submersion by monitoring a voltage at the monitoring terminal [0032].
Terutaka remains silent as to a microcontroller unit determining whether there is submersion by monitoring a voltage at the monitoring terminal. Terutaka does teach that the sensor may be used and applied to control circuits [0053] and also teaches the sensors are used in “digitalization” (computerized) vehicles [0002].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have connected various sensors, including the electronic device of Terutaka, to a microcontroller unit in order to collect and process output signals in one control unit. This would make allow the microcontroller unit to control more than just the windows, as the case with Terutaka, of a vehicle when submersion is determined in order to reduce damage and ensure the safety of occupants.
Regarding claim 2, Terutaka teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the signal detection terminal 181/182 and the ground terminal are positioned opposite each other in the thickness direction of the circuit board 30 (Fig. 3(c)).
Regarding claim 21, Terutaka teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the ground terminal and the signal detection terminal are aligned with each other in the thickness direction of the circuit board 30 (Fig. 3(c)).
Regarding claim 25, Terutaka, as rejected in claim 1, teaches a method for operating an electronic device including a circuit board 30 having a signal detection terminal 181/182 disposed on a first surface of the circuit board 30 (Fig. 3(a)) and a ground terminal 185 disposed on a second surface of the circuit board 30 (Fig. 3(b)), wherein the first surface and the second surface are opposite each other in a thickness direction of the circuit board 30 (Fig. 3(c)), a monitoring terminal 186 connected with the signal detection terminal 181/182, and a microcontroller unit (MCU) connected with the monitoring terminal, the method comprising: monitoring a voltage at the monitoring terminal [0032]; comparing the voltage at the monitoring terminal with a normal state voltage [0032]; and determining whether there is submersion from a comparison result [0032].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-20, 24, and 26-34 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW V DO whose telephone number is (571)270-3420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Walter L Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/A.V.D/Examiner, Art Unit 2852