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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues
Tomimoto merely discloses an electronic apparatus including an internal airflow path or duct for heat dissipation.
However, Tomimoto fails to disclose or teach the specific structure of the duct and the heat sink of the claimed electronic device.
For example, the duct in Tomimoto is formed as an internal airflow path within the housing, and a heat transfer block is disposed entirely inside the housing, such that no portion of the heat transfer block protrudes into the duct and is directly exposed to airflow.
PNG
media_image1.png
284
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, while Tomimoto generally relates to airflow for heat dissipation, Tomimoto does not disclose or teach a heat sink (e.g., transfer block) having a portion that physically protrudes into a duct communicating with the exterior of the device, as recited in amended independent claims 1 and 16. (Applicant’s remarks of 1/26/26, p. 14).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has provided annotations of Tomimoto (US 2024/0074030)’s fig. 4 (on the left above) and fig. 15 (on the right above). In the annotated fig. 4, Applicant has equated element 902 as the inlet and element 903 as the outlet, which both relate to an optional accessory 900. Annotated figure 4 shows the camera body 1 with the optional accessory 900 attached. However, Figures 1A, 1B and 2 show the camera body 1 without the accessory. In the rejection of non-final action dated 11/3/25, the Examiner used the embodiment of the camera body 1 without the accessory. In the non-final action, the Examiner found “a duct” as “fig. 8B, 601”, “a first side surface” as “figs. 7 and 10B, bottom side surface with 603”, “a second side surface” as “fig. 7, top with 611,612”, “a heat sink” as “fig. 15, 1702.” The claim amendments now require “a second portion” that the examiner is finding as element 1702d.
Annotated fig. 7 below shows the arrangement of the duct, first side surface and second side surface relied by the Examiner in the rejection of claim 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
652
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant in their annotation of fig. 15 above, clearly shows a heat sink 1702 (which Applicant has annotated as “heat transfer block”) that has a second portion 1702d that protrudes into the duct 601.
Since Tomimoto teaches or suggests this limitation, it is not necessary for either of the secondary references Wanner or Tsao to teach or suggest these same limitations.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-7 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 6; and Claim 18, line 3, “1mm2” should be “1 mm2”;
Claim 5, line 6; and Claim 18, line 3, “81mm2” should be “81 mm2”;
Claim 6, line 3, “5cm” should be “5 cm”; and
Claim 6, line 3, “10cm” should be “10 cm”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
a. Claim 1, line 19 and Claim 16, line 26 require “a first portion, contacted with the CPU.” The term “contacted” is understood as “the state or condition of physical touching.” The disclosed invention has a heat dissipation member 240, a shield can 230 and an adhesive member 260 between the CPU 220 and the first portion 251 of the heat sink 250. So how does the first portion contact the CPU with these other disclosed elements in between? The Examiner understands that a first portion, coupled with the CPU;
b. Claim 2, line 2, “the inner surface” lacks antecedent basis (due to Applicant’s amendment of claim 1);
c. Claim 16, lines 8-9 requires “the internal space of the housing is connected to an outside of the electronic device through the slit” and “the heat sink including: . . . a second portion . . . protruding into the duct through the slit.” The disclosed invention has the second portion 252 of the heat sink 250 extending into the duct 150 through the slit 155. So how is the internal space of the housing is connected to an outside of the electronic device through the slit? The Examiner understands that the internal space of the housing is connected to an outside of the electronic device through a first opening 151, a second opening 152, a first vent hole 161 and/or a second vent hole 162;
d. Claim 20, line 2 and Claim 16, line 26 each require “a first portion.” Are these the same or different first portions? and
e. Claim 20, line 4 and Claim 16, line 27 each require “a second portion.” Are these the same or different second portions?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tomimoto (US 2024/0074030).
With respect to Claim 1, Tomimoto teaches an electronic device (fig. 1A, 1) comprising: a housing (housing of 1) including a front surface (near side of fig. 1A), a rear surface (near side of fig. 1B) opposite to the front surface, and a plurality of side surfaces (top, bottom and sides of 1) disposed between the front surface and the rear surface; a camera (“IS”) at least partially exposed through the front surface; a display (101) forming at least a portion of the rear surface; a printed circuit board (PCB) (fig. 5, 4) disposed in an internal space (fig. 1A, inside of 1) surrounded by the front surface, the rear surface, and the plurality of side surfaces of the housing, and the PCB including a first surface (fig. 8, bottom of 4) facing the front surface and a second surface (fig. 8, top of 4), opposite to the first surface, facing the rear surface; a central processing unit (CPU) (fig. 6, 400,406) disposed on (see fig. 15, ¶[0051], l. 6) the second surface of the PCB; a duct (fig. 8B, 601) disposed between (see fig. 8B) the second surface of the PCB and the display, and extending from a first side surface (figs. 7 and 10B, bottom side surface with 603) among the plurality of side surfaces, across the internal space of the housing (see fig. 10B), to a second side surface (fig. 7, top side surface with 611,612) among the plurality of side surfaces opposite to the first side surface such that the duct is exposed out of the electronic device (601 is exposed out of 1 by 603 on one side and 611,612 on the other side [just as Applicant’s 150 is exposed by 151 on one side and 152 on another side]); and a heat sink (fig. 15, 1702) including a first portion (fig. 15, portion of 1702 [i.e., 1702a] outside of 601), contacted (fig. 15, 1702 contacts 400,406; see 35 USC 112a rejection above) with the CPU, positioned within (see fig. 15) the housing, and a second portion (1702d), extending from the first portion, protruding (fig. 15, 1702d protrudes into 601) into the duct, wherein the heat sink is configured to transmit heat from the CPU to airflow (¶[0093], ll. 9-10) in the duct.
Alternately, Tomimoto fails to specifically disclose a central processing unit (CPU). Admitted prior art that it is well known in the art to have a central processing unit (CPU) (since the applicant’s transverse of the rejection does not specifically address the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the transverse is not adequate and is taken as admitted prior art. MPEP 2144.03). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tomimoto with a well-known CPU for the purpose of providing a processing unit that executes instructions and processes data for the electronic device.
With respect to Claims 8 and 11, Tomimoto further teaches the heat sink (1702) includes: a first portion (portion of 1702 [i.e., 1702a] outside of 601) having a planar shape (fig. 15, bottom of 1702) at a position adjacent to the CPU; and a second portion (1702d) extending from the first portion toward an inside (fig. 17, inside of 601) of the duct (claim 8) and the housing further includes: a first vent hole (603) formed on the first side surface; and a second vent hole (611,612) formed on the second side surface opposite to the first side surface (claim 11).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tomimoto (US 2024/0074030).
With respect to Claim 5, Tomimoto further teaches the duct includes: a first opening (fig. 7, 603) formed through the first side surface (fig. 7, bottom side surface); and a second opening (611,612) formed through the second side surface (fig. 7, top side surface). Tomimoto fails to disclose each of a size of the first opening and a size of the second opening is in a range of 1mm2 to 81mm2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made for the size of the openings to be any size including a range of 1mm2 to 81mm2 that provides for adequate air flow for thermal management for proper operation of the CPU, 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 only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to Claim 6, Tomimoto discloses the claimed invention except for each of a distance from the first opening to the heat sink and a distance from the second opening to the heat sink is in a range of 5cm to the 10cm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made for the distances to be any size including a range of 5cm to the 10cm that prevents a human operator’s fingers from touching and being burnt by a hot heat sink. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to Claim 7, Tomimoto discloses the claimed invention except for the distance from the first opening to the heat sink is equal to the distance from the second opening to the heat sink. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to the distances to be equal so that the heat sink is embedded from each end by a maximum distance to minimize the possibility of a user’s finger being able to contact the heat sink, 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).
Claims 2-4 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tomimoto (US 2024/0074030) and Wanner (US 9,877,390).
With respect to Claim 2, Tomimoto further teaches a slit (fig. 15, opening in 1705 for 1702 to extend into 601) formed, toward the CPU, on the inner surface (see fig. 15, see 35 USC 112b rejection above) of the duct and configured to pass through the heat sink. Tomimoto fails to disclose a shield can surrounding the CPU; and a heat dissipation member inside the shield can contacting one surface of the CPU facing the slit (claim 2), an adhesive member disposed between the shield can and the heat sink (claim 3). Wanner teaches a shield can (fig. 2A, 10,32) surrounding the CPU (24); and a heat dissipation member (44) inside the shield can contacting one surface (fig. 3, top of 24) of the CPU facing upwards (claim 2), an adhesive (col. 7, l. 15, paste) member (fig. 3A, 50) disposed between the shield can and the heat sink (claim 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tomimoto with a shield can/heat dissipation member of Wanner for the purpose of providing electromagnetic shielding of the CPU to prevent “malfunctions of an electronic component of a device caused by the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation emitted by another electronic component” (col. 1, ll. 22-24). In the combination of Tomimoto and Wanner, the top surface of the CPU of Wanner faces the slit of Tomimoto The combination of Tomimoto and Wanner has the Wanner’s heat dissipation member contacting Tomimoto’s one surface.
With respect to Claim 4, Tomimoto discloses a thermal conductivity (¶[0087], l. 1, thermal conductivity of thermally conductive rubber) and a thermal conductivity and a thermal conductivity of copper (¶[0088], l. 6) which is of the heat sink (1702). Tomimoto and Wanner fail to disclose a thermal conductivity of the shield can is greater than a thermal conductivity of the heat dissipation member and is smaller than a thermal conductivity of the heat sink. Admitted prior art that it is well known in the art to have a shield can made of aluminum is well-known in the art. (since the applicant’s transverse of the rejection does not specifically address the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the transverse is not adequate and is taken as admitted prior art. MPEP 2144.03). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made for the shield can to be made of aluminum which is a good lightweight shielding material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. (copper has higher thermal conductivity than aluminum and aluminum has a higher thermal conductivity than conductive rubber).
With respect to Claims 13 and 14, Tomimoto discloses the claimed invention discloses the claimed invention except for a shield can and a heat dissipation member. Wanner teaches a shield can (fig. 5B, 10) surrounding the CPU (24), and including a base (16,52) disposed between the CPU and the heat sink (48), a through hole (54) formed on the base toward the heat sink, and a sidewall (22s) disposed along a periphery of the base; and a heat dissipation member (50) contacting one surface (fig. 5C, top of 300 thru 54 & 58) of the CPU facing upwards, and protruding from the base passing through (see fig. 5C) the through hole of the shield can toward the heat sink (claim 13) and an adhesive (col. 7, l. 15, paste) member (fig. 3A, 50) disposed between the shield can and the heat sink (claim 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tomimoto with a shield can/heat dissipation member of Wanner for the purpose of providing electromagnetic shielding of the CPU to prevent “malfunctions of an electronic component of a device caused by the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation emitted by another electronic component” (col. 1, ll. 22-24). In the combination of Tomimoto and Wanner, the top surface of the CPU of Wanner faces the slit of Tomimoto.
With respect to Claim 15, Tomimoto discloses a thermal conductivity (¶[0087], l. 1) and a thermal conductivity of copper (¶[0088], l. 6) which is of the heat sink (1702). Tomimoto fails to disclose a thermal conductivity of the heat dissipation member is greater than a thermal conductivity of the shield can and is smaller than a thermal conductivity of the heat sink. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made for the shield can to be made of steel which is an inexpensive shielding material and the heat dissipation member can be a thermal interface material including a thermal conductive filler (i.e.. graphene) to increase its thermal conductivity, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. (thermal interface material can be tuned so that it has higher thermal conductivity than steel and lower thermal conductivity than copper).
With respect to Claim 16, Tomimoto teaches an electronic device (fig. 1A, 1), comprising: a housing (housing of 1) including a front surface (near side of fig. 1A), a rear surface (near side of fig. 1B) opposite to the front surface, and a plurality of side surfaces (top, bottom and sides of 1) disposed between the front surface and the rear surface, wherein an internal space (fig. 1A, inside of 1) of the housing is defined by the front surface, the rear surface, and the plurality of side surfaces, and a slit (fig. 15, opening in 1705 for 1702 to extend into 601), wherein the internal space of the housing is connected to an outside (fig. 1, outside of 1) of the electronic device through the slit (see 35 USC 112a rejection above); a camera (“IS”) at least partially exposed through the front surface; a display (101) forming at least a portion of the rear surface; a printed circuit board (PCB) (fig. 5, 4) disposed in the internal space of the housing, and the PCB including a first surface (fig. 8, bottom of 4) facing the front surface and a second surface (fig. 8, top of 4), opposite to the first surface, facing the rear surface; a central processing unit (CPU) (fig. 6, 400) disposed on (see fig. 15, ¶[0051], l. 6) the second surface of the PCB; a duct (fig. 8B, 601) disposed between (see fig. 8B) the second surface of the PCB and the display, and extending from a first opening (figs. 7 and 10B, 603) formed through a first side surface (figs. 7 and 10B, bottom side surface with 603) among the plurality of side surfaces, across the internal space of the housing (see fig. 10B), to a second opening (fig. 7, 611,612) formed through a second side surface (fig. 7, top side surface with 611,612) among the plurality of side surfaces opposite to the first side surface, wherein the duct is exposed out of the electronic device (601 is exposed out of 1 by 603 on one side and 611,612 on the other side [just as Applicant’s 150 is exposed by 151 on one side and 152 on another side]); and a heat sink (fig. 15, 1702) configured to transmit heat from the CPU to airflow in the duct, the heat sink including: a first portion (fig. 15, portion of 1702 [i.e., 1702a] outside of 601), contacted (fig. 15, 1702 contacts 400,406; see 35 USC 112a rejection above) with the CPU, positioned within (see fig. 15) the housing, and a second portion (1702d), extending from the first portion, protruding (fig. 15, 1702d protrudes into 601) into the duct through the slit. Tomimoto fails to specially disclose a central processing unit (CPU) and a shield can. Warner teaches a central processing unit (CPU) (col. 5, l. 4) and a shield can (10) surrounding the CPU. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tomimoto with a shield can/heat dissipation member of Wanner for the purpose of providing electromagnetic shielding of the CPU to prevent “malfunctions of an electronic component of a device caused by the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation emitted by another electronic component” (col. 1, ll. 22-24). In the combination of Tomimoto and Wanner, the top surface of the CPU of Wanner faces the slit of Tomimoto.
With respect to Claim 17, Tomimoto discloses the claimed invention except for a heat dissipation member inside the shield can contacting a one surface of the CPU facing the slit; and an adhesive member disposed between the shield can and the heat sink. Wanner teaches a heat dissipation member (44) inside the shield can contacting a one surface (fig. 3, top of 24) of the CPU facing upwards; and an adhesive (col. 7, l. 15, paste) member (fig. 3A, 50) disposed between the shield can and the heat sink. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tomimoto with a shield can/heat dissipation member of Wanner for the purpose of providing electromagnetic shielding of the CPU to prevent “malfunctions of an electronic component of a device caused by the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation emitted by another electronic component” (col. 1, ll. 22-24). In the combination of Tomimoto and Wanner, Wanner’s heat dissipation member contacting Tomimoto’s one surface and the top surface of the CPU of Wanner faces the slit of Tomimoto.
With respect to Claim 18, Tomimoto and Wanner fail to disclose each of a size of the first opening and a size of the second opening is in a range of 1mm2 to 81mm2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made for the size of the openings to be any size including a range of 1mm2 to 81mm2 that provides for adequate air flow for thermal management for proper operation of the CPU, 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 only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to Claim 19, Tomimoto discloses the claimed invention except for the distance from the first opening to the heat sink is equal to the distance from the second opening to the heat sink. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to the distances to be equal so that the heat sink is embedded from each end by a maximum distance to minimize the possibility of a user’s finger being able to contact the heat sink, 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).
With respect to Claim 20, Tomimoto further teaches the heat sink (1702) includes: a first portion (1702) having a planar shape (fig. 15, bottom of 1702) at a position adjacent to the CPU; and a second portion (1702d) extending from the first portion toward an inside (fig. 17, inside of 601) of the duct.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tomimoto (US 2024/0074030) and Tsao (US 8,801,476).
Tomimoto discloses the claimed invention including the second portion includes: a plurality of protrusions; and a plurality of grooves respectively disposed between the plurality of protrusions (claim 9) and an area of the first portion facing the CPU is greater than an area of one surface of the CPU facing the duct (claim 10). Tsao teaches the second portion includes: a plurality of protrusions (fig. 1, fins of 130); and a plurality of grooves (fig. 1, grooves between fins of 130) respectively disposed between the plurality of protrusions (claim 9) and an area (fig. 1, area of bottom of 130) of the first portion facing the CPU is greater than an area fig. 1, (area of top of 300) of one surface of the CPU facing the duct (claim 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tomimoto with the heat sink of Tsao for purpose of providing large heat sink that maximizes the area of heat transfer between the CPU and the heat sink and includes protrusions to maximize the surface area of the heat sink for increased heat transfer into the surrounding environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 12 is 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, and addressing the claim objections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 12 is allowable over the art of record because the prior art does not teach or suggest that the duct includes a third vent hole for transmitting heat emitted from the display to the duct, formed through the inner surface of the duct. The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of the respective claims are believed to render said claim 12 patentable over art of record.
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 ROBERT J HOFFBERG whose telephone number is (571) 272-2761. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached on (571) 272-3740. 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.
RJH 2/5/2026
/ROBERT J HOFFBERG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835