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 1-2, 4-14 & 16-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
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) 1-2, 4-7 & 16-20 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 Claim 1, Furuya teaches an 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; and
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: 12% ≤ (B1 + B2) / (A1 + A2) ≤ 40% , 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 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)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make 12% ≤ (B1 + B2) / (A1 + A2) ≤ 40%, 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 12% ≤ (B1 + B2) / (A1 + A2) ≤ 40%, 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 Claim 2, 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).
D) As Claim 4, 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% ≤ (B11 + B21) / (A11 + A21), 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% ≤ (B11 + B21) / (A11 + A21), 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 Claim 5, 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% ≤ (B12 + B22) / (A12 + A22), 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% ≤ (B12 + B22) / (A12 + A22), 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 Claim 7, 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 & 16-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/15/2026 have been fully considered but some are not persuasive.
A) The Applicant asserts that it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the open hole ratio of the mask because Furuya teaches that the mask must be mesh and have specific thicknesses. The Examiner respectfully disagree. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the ratio of vent holes to solid structure of the mask so as to find a proper balance between strength of the mask and airflow allowed through the holes.
Conclusion
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 ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached 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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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
Prosecution Insights