DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/30/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
Regarding the rejection of claim 5, it is argued that the reference does not teach the limitation and there is no articulate reason provided for the rejection.
Note a skilled artisan would optimize the relative size through routine experimentation noting that there isn’t a real limitation on it. Whether it is smaller, the same, or bigger is not described as a critical element of the invention and a skilled artisan would realize that as long as the width fits within the opening the height can be optimized so that the heating element can perform its intended functions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claim 2 has been overcome by the canceling of claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12, and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatenta7ble over Condie, US 7,446,411, in view of Suzuki et al., US 2005/0275078, and/or Knappenberger, US 3,792,383.
Regarding claim 1, Condie (figure 8) teaches a power amplification device comprising:
a first board 343 formed with a first through-hole passing through the first board 343 in a front- rear direction;
a second board 444 having a front surface disposed on a rear surface of the first board 343, formed with a second through-hole passing through the second board 444 in the front-rear direction at a position corresponding to the first through-hole, and equipped with a heating element 120 passing through the first through-hole and the second through-hole; and
a heat dissipating plate 112 having a front surface disposed on a rear surface of the second board 444 and a rear surface of the heating element 120 in contact with a front surface thereof,
wherein a thickness of the second board 444 in the front-rear direction is formed to be smaller than the thickness of the first board 343 in the front-rear direction, and
wherein the first board 343 is made of a synthetic resin material (column 6, lines 4-14), and the second board is made of a metal material (column 6, lines 15-16).
Condie teaches (column 6, lines 4-14) the first board 343 being made of an electrically insulative materials such as a polymer, a thermoplastic or a thermoset material, all of which are synthetic resin materials.
Condie fails to teach a front surface of the heating element protrudes beyond the front surface of the second board.
Suzuki (figure 2B) teaches a front surface (top) of the heating element 5 protrudes beyond the front surface of the second board 1.
Knappenberger (figure 3) teaches a front surface (top) of the heating element 39 protrudes beyond the front surface of the second board 15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the configuration of either or both of Suzuki and/or Knappenberger in the invention of Condie because they teach equivalent configurations that are known and used in the art. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950). Also, lacking a showing of criticality, changes in size or proportion are within the ordinary level of skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 IV).
With respect to claim 2, Condie (figure 8) teaches an edge of each of the first board 343, the second board 444, and the heat dissipating plate 112 is formed to have the same size. The top and bottom surface of each of these elements have the same length therefore an edge of all three of them are the same size. Alternatively this claim is withdrawn as referred to a non-elected limitation, as discussed above.
Pertaining to claim 3, Knappenberger (figure 3) teaches a terminal 45 of the heating element 121 is soldered to a terminal mounting part (where 45 attached to 12) of a circuit 12 printed to the front surface of the second board 15.
In claim 5, though Condie fails to teach a thickness of the first board 343 and the second board 444 in contact with each other in the front-rear direction is formed to be smaller than a thickness of the heating element 120 in the front-rear direction, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the relative thickness through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). A skilled artisan would optimize the relative size through routine experimentation noting that there isn’t a real limitation on it. Whether it is smaller, the same, or bigger is not described as a critical element of the invention and a skilled artisan would realize that as long as the width fits within the opening the height can be optimized so that the heating element can perform its intended functions.
Regarding claim 6, Knappenberger (figure 3) teaches a thickness of the first board 15 and the second board 11 in contact with each other in the front-rear direction is formed to be the same as a thickness of the heating element 39 in the front-rear direction.
With respect to claim 7, though Condie fails to teach each of the first board 343 and the second board 444 is formed of a plurality of layers, and the second board is formed of fewer layers than the first board, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a plurality of layers in the invention of Condie because plural layer boards are within the level of ordinary skill and conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07), and it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the relative number of layers through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 9, Condie (figure 8) teaches a vertical length of the first through-hole (hole in 343) is formed to be half or more of a vertical length of the first board 3434, and the second through-hole (hole in 444) is formed to have a smaller size than the first through-hole (hole in 343).
In re claim 12, Condie (column 4, lines 31-33) teaches the heating element 120 is formed as a radio frequency (RF) element.
Concerning claim 26, Condie (figure 8) teaches the heat dissipating plate 112 has a rear surface which is open to air.
Pertaining to claim 27, Knappenberger (figure 3) teaches a front surface of the heating element 39 extends at least as far as a front surface of the first board 15.
Claim(s) 10, 11, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condie, US 7,446,411, in view of Suzuki et al., US 2005/0275078, and/or Knappenberger, US 3,792,383, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshida et al., US 2006/0138654.
As to claim 10, Condie fails to teach a front surface of the heat dissipating plate is formed with an insertion groove into which a rear end of the heating element is inserted.
Yoshida (figure 2B) teaches a front surface of the heat dissipating plate 12 is formed with an insertion groove H into which a rear end of the heating element 16 is inserted.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the insertion groove of Yoshida in the invention of Condie because an insertion groove is conventionally known and used in the art, for example to lower the profile of the overall device. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
In re claim 11, though Yoshida fails to teach the first board includes a plurality of sections divided by plated portions, which form a circuit printed on the front surface of the first board, in a left-right direction, the first through-hole is formed one by one in the plurality of sections and formed of a plurality of first through-holes, the second through-hole is formed at a position corresponding to each of the plurality of first through-holes and formed of a plurality of second through-holes, the insertion groove is formed at a position corresponding to each of the plurality of second through-holes and formed of a plurality of insertion grooves, and the heating element passes through each of the plurality of first through-holes and each of the plurality of second through-holes and formed of a plurality of heating elements, each of which has a rear end inserted into each of the plurality of insertion grooves, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use this setup in the invention of Yoshida because it allows for the production of many devices at once as opposed to one at time. the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Concerning claim 25, Yoshida (figure 2B0 teaches the front surface of the heat dissipating plate 12 is formed with an insertion groove H, and a rear end of the heating element 16 is inserted into the insertion groove H.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art teach various aspects of the invention.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 5/4/26
