DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/16/26, 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The limitations of claim 2 are counter to the limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 requires the second board has a smaller thickness than the first board but claim 2 requires the first board, second board and the heat dissipating plate to have the same size. These two limitations are counter intuitive. Two interpretations will be used to include the two possible interpretations.
The first one being that the top and or bottom is considered to be “an edge”.
The second one is that the edge is a side surface, meaning the thickness. In this case the election of Species 1a, the thicknesses are not the same, removes this claim from examination. If this is the intended interpretation then withdrawal of this claim is requested.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 12, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being clearly anticipated by Condie, US 7,446,411.
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.
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 an 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.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condie, US 7,446,411, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brown, US 4,413,308.
Pertaining to claim 3, Condie fails to teach a terminal (where 560 attached to 121) of the heating element 121 is soldered to a terminal mounting part of a circuit printed to the front surface of the second board 444.
Brown (figures 4 & 5) teaches a terminal 14 of the heating element 13 is soldered 19 to a terminal mounting part 14 of a circuit printed 18 to the front surface of the second board 10.
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).
Regarding claim 6, 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 the same as a thickness of the heating element 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).
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).
Claim(s) 10, 11, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condie, US 7,446,411, 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.
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
Prosecution Insights