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.
Claims 1, 9-13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tominaga (US 2005/0167183) in view of Shimada (US 2019/0180958).
In re claim 1, Tominaga discloses a vehicle steering device (1), comprising a power pack housing (combination of control unit 60 and motor 30) having a motor housing (outer portion of motor 30) accommodating a motor (30) and a substrate housing (62) accommodating a printed circuit board (61, 63); a housing cover (65) coupled to an open end portion of the substrate housing to form an inner space above the printed circuit board (as shown in Figures 3 and 4), and having a communication hole (top of housing is open and therefore can be broadly considered a hole) for connecting between the inner space of the housing cover and an outside of the housing cover (as shown in Figure 4), but does not disclose a sealer disposed in the inner space between the housing cover and the printed circuit board.
Shimada, however, does disclose an electronic component (1) having a printed circuit board (9) wherein the housing (25) has a communication hole for connecting between the inner space of the housing cover and an outside of the housing cover; and a sealer (10) injected into in the inner space between the housing cover and the printed circuit board (as shown in Figure 2) to protect the PCB from the elements.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tominaga such that it comprised the injectable sealer of Shimada to advantageously protect the PCB from the elements in the event that water leaks into the housing.
In re claim 9, the combination of Tominaga and Shimada, as discussed above, discloses a method for manufacturing a vehicle steering device, the method comprising: injecting a sealer into an empty space (see [0082], [0130], and [0131] of Shimada), formed by a housing cover above a printed circuit board accommodated in a substrate housing of a power pack housing, through a communication hole formed at the housing cover coupled to an open end portion of the substrate housing of the power pack housing, wherein the power pack housing has a motor housing accommodating a motor and the substrate housing; and solidifying the sealer injected into the empty space (see [0082], [0130], and [0131] of Shimada) formed above the printed circuit board by the housing cover.
In re claim 10, Tominaga discloses a vehicle steering device (1), comprising: a power pack housing (combination of control unit 60 and motor 30) including a motor housing (outer portion of motor 30) accommodating a motor (30) and a substrate housing (62) accommodating a printed circuit board (63), wherein the substrate housing includes a bottom portion (where screws 75 pass as shown in Figures 4 and 8) above which the printed circuit board is mounted and a plurality of sidewall portions (as shown in Figures 4 and 8) vertically extended from edges of the bottom portion of the substrate housing; but does not disclose a sealer disposed in the substrate housing to fill an upper space and a lower space of the printed circuit board.
Shimada, however, does disclose an electronic component (1) having a printed circuit board (9) wherein the housing (25) has a sealer (10) injected into in the upper and lower space of the printed circuit board (as shown in Figure 2) to protect the PCB from the elements.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tominaga such that it comprised the injectable sealer of Shimada to advantageously protect the PCB from the elements in the event that water leaks into the housing.
In re claim 11, Tominaga further discloses wherein the plurality of sidewall portions of the substrate housing have an inner surface, but does not disclose wherein one of the sidewall inner surfaces is angled to protrude inwardly such that a degree of inward protrusion of the inner surface increases toward the bottom portion of the substrate housing. At the time the application was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an angled inner surface because Applicant has not disclosed that the angled portion provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well without the angled portion. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the sidewalls to obtain the invention as claimed.
In re claim 12, Tominaga further discloses wherein a horizontal support (62h) protruding upwardly from the bottom portion of the substrate housing to support the printed circuit board is provided at a corner of the bottom portion of the substrate housing (the support beams are provided throughout the housing, including the corners as shown in Figure 7).
In re claim 13, Tominaga further discloses wherein the bottom portion of the substrate housing has a flat surface but does not disclose an inclined surface in which a vertical distance between the bottom portion of the substrate housing and the printed circuit board increases in a direction away from the angled inner surface of the one of the plurality of sidewall portions of the substrate housing. At the time the application was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an inclined surface because Applicant has not disclosed that the angled portion provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well without the inclined surface. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the sidewalls to obtain the invention as claimed.
In re claim 19, Tominaga further discloses wherein the printed circuit board (63) has a plurality of substrate holes passing through an upper surface and a lower surface of the printed circuit board (as shown in Figures 4 and 8).
In re claim 20, Tominaga further discloses wherein a substrate hole (upper right hole as shown in Figure 8) in a center of the printed circuit board has a largest diameter among the plurality of substrate holes of the printed circuit board. The Examiner notes that this hole is not along the edge of the PCB and therefore can be considered to be “in a center” of the PCB.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein: a mounting groove is provided at an upper edge of the substrate housing, the mounting groove opened toward the housing cover, and an elastic support is mounted in the mounting groove of the substrate housing to elastically support a lower surface of the printed circuit board” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach an elastic support mounted in a groove of a substrate housing to support a printed circuit board.
Claims 5-8 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “further comprising a filling housing connected to the communication hole of the housing cover, disposed between the housing cover and the printed circuit board, and filled with the sealer” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach further comprising a filling housing between the housing cover and printed circuit board that is filled with the sealer.
Claims 14-16 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the bottom portion of the substrate housing has a shaft hole through which a shaft of the motor passes and a hole cover covering the shaft hole” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach a substrate housing as claimed further comprising a hole accommodating a motor shaft with a hole cover for the hole.
Claims 17-18 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the bottom portion of the substrate housing has a terminal hole through which a terminal of the motor passes, and an elastic material is disposed between the terminal of the motor and the terminal hole of the bottom portion of the substrate housing” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach a substrate housing as claimed further comprising a terminal hole for a motor terminal with an elastic material between the hole and terminal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references cited on the attached PTO-892 teach motor housings/injectable resins of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (571) 272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611