DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. 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 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.
Application Status
This office action is in response to the claims filed 11/21/2025.
Claims 6 and 9-26 are currently pending and being examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The 2 IDS documents submitted have been considered. See the attached PTO 1449 forms.
Claim Objections
In claim 13, “the second spring being one the of plurality of the cylindrical springs” requires correction.
In claim 20, “a plurality of spring” requires correction.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 6, 9, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran et al. US 2006/0002089 in view of Numata US 2019/0388983.
Regarding claim 6:
Tran teaches a control apparatus, the control apparatus comprising: at least one circuit board (23); a heat-conductor (12); a cooler (14) for cooling the at least one circuit board ([0011]); at least one housing element (24), wherein, in a mounted state of the control apparatus, the circuit board and the heat-conductor are arranged between the cooler and the housing element (shown in FIG. 1), and the heat-conductor is positioned between the circuit board and the cooler (shown in FIG. 1); and a preloader (26) between the housing element and the at least one circuit board to press the circuit board against the heat-conductor in a predefined direction ([0013]); the preloader including a first spring and a second spring (Tran, [0013]); the first spring having a first extent in a direction and the second spring having a second different extent in the direction (i.e., due to the springs facing opposite directions).
Tran does not explicitly disclose the control apparatus being for a power tool.
Numata discloses a power tool having a control apparatus (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the control apparatus of Tran, by using it to provide a cooled control apparatus to a power tool, such as the one taught by Numata, which are known to generate large amounts of heat in the electronics, requiring cooling (abstract).
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Tran and Numata teaches the control apparatus as recited in claim 6 wherein the preloader is configured at least partially from a resilient material (Tran, [0014]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the preloader of Tran by implementing a silicone interface, since Williams teaches it is compressible and can enhance the thermal connection.
Regarding claim 21:
The combination of Tran and Numata teaches the control apparatus as recited in claim 6 wherein the heat-conductor is a flat pad (Tran, see FIG. 1).
While the combination of Tran and Numata does not explicitly teach the flat pad being made of copper, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the flat pad of Tran, by utilizing copper, since copper is well known to be a highly conductive metal.
Regarding claim 22:
The combination of Tran and Numata teaches the control apparatus as recited in claim 6 wherein the at least one housing element includes a first housing (Tran, 24) and a second housing (18), the first housing being below the second housing (see FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 23:
The combination of Tran and Numata teaches the control apparatus as recited in claim 22 wherein the second housing has a cutout (Tran, surrounding 20), the cooler being fastened to the cutout (see FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 24:
The combination of Tran and Numata teaches the control apparatus as recited in claim 6, wherein the cooler includes a baseplate (12) and a plurality of cooling ribs (14).
Regarding claim 25:
The combination of Tran and Numata teaches a power tool comprising the control apparatus as recited in claim 6, as discussed above, the power tool further comprising a tool housing (Numata, 11), the tool housing comprising a plurality of ventilation openings (11a).
Regarding claim 26:
The combination of Tran and Numata teaches the power tool as recited in claim 25 wherein the cooler is arranged next to the ventilation openings ([0066]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tran and Numata, as applied above, and further in view of Williams US 2014/0369006.
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Tran and Numata teaches the control apparatus as recited in claim 6 but does not teach wherein the preloader is configured at least partially from silicone.
Williams discloses a related circuit apparatus teaching a “thermal connection can be enhanced by layers of silicone or other thermally conductive compressible material pressed against the thermal relief solder filled holes under heat sink pads on a PCB, again allowing a single plane interface between a heat sink platen and active switching semiconductor.” ([0106]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-20 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. The prior art does not teach or render obvious: wherein the first spring has a greater size than the second spring (claim 11); wherein the preloader includes a plurality of triangular springs, the first spring being one of the plurality of triangular springs (claim 12); wherein the at least one circuit board includes a carrier plate and a plurality of electronic components, the carrier plate having a first side and a second side, the electronic components being fastened to the first side (claim 15); the first spring is a triangular spring (claim 18); and the preloader includes a plurality of spring in addition to the first and second springs (claim 20). Claims 13-14, 16-17, and 19 would be allowable based on their dependencies.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been carefully considered but are not found persuasive. Regarding Tran, Applicant argues “the spring arms 34 do not have different extents as claimed. In Tran, the apexes 46 of the spring arms 34 are the same height and thus have the same extent.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 6 defines “a direction” and then requires the extent of each spring to be different in that direction. In FIG. 2, we can see that because the springs are oriented in opposite directions, their extents (i.e., from their base edge, along their spring arms 34) in a given direction (e.g., from left to right, or alternatively from right to left in FIGS. 1 and 2) will be different. In other words, if one of the springs is considered to extend from base to spring arms in the claimed “direction”, then the other of the springs would necessarily extend from base to arms in the opposite direction, due simply to the springs being arranged in opposing fashion. Examiner notes that a “direction” may be defined by a vector and has a stricter meaning than something like an “axis” which carries no “sense”. If, for example, the claim were amended with “the first spring having a length along an axis and the second spring having a second different length along said axis”, then the teachings of the Tran reference would be overcome since the two springs have the same dimensions.
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 extension fee 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 DARIUSH SEIF whose telephone number is (408)918-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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, ANNA KINSAUL can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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.
/DARIUSH SEIF/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3731