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. Status of Application Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 04/24/2024 has been considered by the Examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 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) 1 -20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Number 10,638,643 B2 to Furuya . A) As per Claims 1, 8 & 18, Furuya teaches a n electronic device (Furuya: Figure 4) , comprising: a shell element (Furuya: Figure 4, Item 5) having an accommodating space (Furuya: Best shown in Figure 3A, area inside Items 2 & 5) and a metal surface (Furuya: Figure 3A, Item 2) , the shell element comprising: a plurality of fins (Furuya: Figure 3A, Items 5a-5e) separately disposed on the metal surface; at least one electronic element (Furuya: Figures 3A, Items 7c, 7d & 7e) disposed in the accommodating space; a printed circuit board (Furuya: Figure 3A, Item 7A) disposed in the accommodating space and electrically connected to the at least one electronic element; and an anti-scalding mask (Furuya: Figure 4, Item 11) covering and disposed on the metal surface and comprising a plurality of vents; wherein the anti-scalding mask is made of a low thermal conductivity material (Furuya: Col. 6, lines 42-43) . Furuya does not explicitly teach a thermal conductivity of the low thermal conductivity material is less than or equal to 20 W/mK. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the low thermal conductivity material is less than or equal to 20 W/mK , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art ( low thermal conductivity ), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art. In addition, it is observed that the thermal conductivity is a result effective variable because the lower the thermal conductivity, the less dangerous for the user . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the low thermal conductivity material less than or equal to 20 W/mK , since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)). B) As per Claims 2, 11 & 19, Furuya teaches that the anti-scalding mask further comprises: a sidewall structure with one side thereof connected to the shell element; and a mask cover connected to another side of the sidewall structure, wherein a mask space is defined by the shell element, the sidewall structure, and the mask cover, and the plurality of fins are located in the mask space; wherein at least one of the sidewall structure and the mask cover comprises the plurality of vents, and the plurality of vents are communicated with the mask space (Furuya: best shown in Figures 4 & 5, Item 11 has vent holes) . C) As per Claims 3, 12 & 20, Furuya teaches all the limitations except explicitly that a projected area of the anti-scalding mask along a first direction is A1, a projected area of the anti-scalding mask along a second direction is A2, a projected area of the plurality of vents along the first direction is B1, a projected area of the plurality of vents along the second direction is B2, and the following condition is satisfied: 5% ≤ (B1 + B2) / (A1 + A2), wherein the second direction is perpendicular to a circuit board surface of the printed circuit board, the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction, and the projected area of the anti-scalding mask along the first direction is a projected area from the metal surface to a surface of the anti-scalding mask. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make 5% ≤ (B1 + B2) / (A1 + A2) , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art. In addition, it is observed that the ratio is a result effective variable because the larger the ratio the more airflow can cool the metal . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make 5% ≤ (B1 + B2) / (A1 + A2) , since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)). D) As Claims 4 & 13, Furuya teaches all the limitations except explicitly that the anti-scalding mask has a first part and a second part, and the first part and the second part are arranged in sequence along the first direction; and a projected area of the first part along the first direction is A11, a projected area of the first part along the second direction is A21, a projected area of the plurality of vents on the first part along the first direction is B11, a projected area of the plurality of vents on the first part along the second direction is B21, and the following condition is satisfied: 5% ≤ (B11 + B21) / (A11 + A21). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make 5% ≤ (B 1 1 + B 21 ) / (A1 1 + A2 1 ) , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art. In addition, it is observed that the ratio is a result effective variable because the larger the ratio the more airflow can cool the metal . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make 5% ≤ (B1 1 + B2 1 ) / (A1 1 + A2 1 ) , since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)). E) As per Claims 5 & 14, Furuya teaches all the limitations except explicitly that a projected area of the second part along the first direction is A12, a projected area of the second part along the second direction is A22, a projected area of the plurality of vents on the second part along the first direction is B12, a projected area of the plurality of vents on the second part along the second direction is B22, and the following condition is satisfied: 5% ≤ (B12 + B22) / (A12 + A22). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make 5% ≤ (B1 2 + B2 2 ) / (A1 2 + A2 2 ) , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art. In addition, it is observed that the ratio is a result effective variable because the larger the ratio the more airflow can cool the metal . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make 5% ≤ (B1 2 + B2 2 ) / (A1 2 + A2 2 ) , since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)). F) As per Claim 6, Furuya teaches that the plurality of vents are separated from each other and equidistantly disposed on the sidewall structure or the mask cover (Furuya: best shown in Figures 4 & 5, Item 11 has vent holes) . G) As per Claims 7 & 16, Furuya teaches that both the sidewall structure and the mask cover comprise the plurality of vents (Furuya: best shown in Figures 4 & 5, Item 11 has vent holes) . H) As per Claim 9, Furuya teaches all the limitations except explicitly that a height of each of the plurality of fins perpendicular to the metal surface is smaller than or equal to 200 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the fin height less than 200mm , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art ( fins ), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art. In addition, it is observed that fin length is a result effective variable because the longer the more surface area but the more fragile they are . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the fin height less than 200mm , since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)). I) As per Claim 10, Furuya teaches that the plurality of fins are vertical fins (Furuya: Figure 3A, Items 5a-5e) , inclined fins, transverse fins, needle fins, turning fins, or combinations thereof. J) As per Claim 15, Furuya teaches that projected positions of the plurality of vents along the first direction are separated from projected positions of the plurality of fins along the first direction, and projected positions of the plurality of vents along the second direction are separated from projected positions of the plurality of fins along the second direction (Furuya: best shown in Figures 4 & 5, Item 11 has vent holes) . K) As per Claim 17, Furuya teaches that a maximum height of the plurality of fins perpendicular to the metal surface is H M , a minimum distance between the mask cover and the metal surface is D M , and the following condition is satisfied: 40% ≤ H M /D M ≤ 100%. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the ratio 40% ≤ H M /D M ≤ 100%. , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art ( an air gap for cooling ), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art. In addition, it is observed that air gap ratio is a result effective variable because the larger the gap the more airflow but the larger the mask has to be . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the ratio 40% ≤ H M /D M ≤ 100% , since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A) US Patent Publication Number 2024/0196567 A1 to Kim Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8511 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9AM-5PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT STEVE MCALLISTER can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-6785 . 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. /Allen R. B. Schult/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762