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. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Species I (Figs. 1-5), claims 1, 4, 5, and 9 in the reply filed on 2/2/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that, allegedly, “ In evaluating the special technical features, the Official Action only considers what is different between the identified species I-VI. The Official Action does not evaluate the subject matter common to all claims (e.g., at least the features recited in claim 1); much less, explain why the technical features (or subject matter common to all claims) are not considered to define a contribution over the prior art. Accordingly, Applicants submit that the Examiner has not established that the claims lack unity of invention. ” This is not found persuasive because the aforementioned Applicant’s arguments are pertained to a postreiori unity analysis. However, in the instant case the distinct structural arrangements of the respective Species, as clearly explained in the outstanding Election/Restriction requirement, render them lacking unity of invention a priori . Further, the rejection of the elected Species claims, as shown in the body of the rejection below, is of evidence that the Species also are lacking unity posteriori as well, since there is no special technical features common to all the claims that would define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, over the prior art. PCT Rule 13.2 . Furthermore, the Office has clearly stated in the outstanding restriction requirement: “ Should A pplicant traverse on the ground that species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, Applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case ” (emphasis added). However, Applicant has failed to do so. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. The non-elected claims 2, 3, and 6-8 have been withdrawn from further consideration on the merits. The Office action on the elected claims 1, 4, 5, and 9 follows. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1, 4, 5, and 9 , are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 4 positively sets forth “a heat dissipating plate” in addition to the previously introduced in parent claim 1 “an attached member”. This creates an ambiguity and indefiniteness, since according to the disclosure, in the elected species of Figs. 1-5, both of said components are the same thing, i.e., the attached component is the heat dissipating plate (e.g., see p. 34, l. 20; pars. [0017]-[0019], [0024], [0045]). Accordingly, said claim s 1, 4, and remaining claims dependent therefrom are indefinite. Furthermore, claim 9 recites the limitation “insulating member” (three instances) without specifying what kind of “insulation” is being referred to (i.e., thermal, electrical, etc.). Accordingly this limitation is open-ended and renders the claim indefinite. Further more , said claim 9 recites ambiguous functional limitations: “ the insulating member prevents separation of the heat generating component from the heat dissipator ” without specifically reciting structural limitations supporting the aforementioned functionality. The aforementioned functional limitations have no limiting effect on the scope of the claim and render the scope of said claim not clearly defined, since the claim attempts to define the subject matter in terms of the result to be achieved, which merely amounts to a statement of the underlying problem, without providing the technical features necessary for achieving this result. Appropriate corrections are required. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting of any remaining problems and informalities of which Applicant may become aware in the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim s 1, 4, and 9, as best understood , are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2004-247561 to Yamaguchi (cited in IDS, see English translation of record) . Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Yamaguchi discloses a circuit assembly (Figs. 1 -4 and English translation of record ) comprising: a case (30) including an opening hole (32) at a bottom thereof, a heat generating component (1) that is housed inside the case, is exposed to the outside through the opening hole, and is in thermal contact with an external heat dissipator (inherently present external structure to which the circuit assembly is mounted to) ; and an annular sealing member (4) that is disposed at a peripheral edge portion of the opening hole and is interposed between the case and an attached member (2) that is attached to the case. Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Yamaguchi discloses (Figs. 1, 2, and 4) a heat dissipating plate (2) that covers the opening hole and is made of a material with higher thermal conductivity than the case (inherently, since the case is made of insulating material (par. [0025]), wherein the heat dissipating plate is made of aluminum-based metal (par. [0022])) , wherein the heat generating component (1) is mounted in thermal contact with an inner surface of the heat dissipating plate, and an outer surface of the heat dissipating plate is in thermal contact with the external heat dissipator (i.e., with the inherently present external structure to which the circuit assembly is mounted to). Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Yamaguchi discloses (Figs. 1, 2, and 4) an insulating member (31) (inherently will provide at least some thermal insulation) that covers the heat generating component (1) from above, and the insulating member (31) is attached to the case (30) so that the insulating member prevents separation of the heat generating component (1) from the heat dissipator (2) (inherently, since as best understood, the entire device should be disassembled (including removal of said member (31)) in order to provide access to said heat generating component (1)) . Claim s 1, 4, and 9, as best understood , are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2005-294741 to Tomoki (cited in IDS, see English translation of record) . Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Tomoki discloses a circuit assembly (Figs. 1 , 2, and 6 and English translation of record ) comprising: a case (21) including an opening hole at a bottom thereof (Fig. 2) , a heat generating component (11) that is housed inside the case, is exposed to the outside through the opening hole, and is in thermal contact with an external heat dissipator (i.e., the inherently present external structure to which the circuit assembly is mounted to) ; and an annular sealing member (23) that is disposed at a peripheral edge portion of the opening hole and is interposed between the case and an attached member (22) that is attached to the case. Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Tomoki discloses a heat dissipating plate (22) that covers the opening hole and is made of a material with higher thermal conductivity than the case (inherently, since the case (21) is made of a synthetic resin (p. 3), wherein the heat dissipating plate (22) is made of aluminum or aluminum alloy (p. 3)) , wherein the heat generating component (11) is mounted in thermal contact with an inner surface of the heat dissipating plate (22) , and an outer surface of the heat dissipating plate is in thermal contact with the external heat dissipator (i.e., with the inherently present external structure to which the circuit assembly is mounted to) . Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Tomoki discloses (Figs. 1, 2, and 6) an insulating member (30) (inherently will provide at least some thermal insulation) that covers the heat generating component (11) from above, and the insulating member (30) is attached to the case (21) so that the insulating member prevents separation of the heat generating component (11) from the heat dissipator (inherently, since as best understood, the entire device should be disassembled (including removal of said member (30)) in order to provide access to said heat generating component (11)) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 /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. Claim s 1 , 4, and 9, as best understood , are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a ) (1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2004/0160754 to Kobayashi. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Kobayashi discloses a circuit assembly (Figs. 1 and 2) comprising: a case (50) including an opening hole at a bottom thereof (par. [0061]) , a heat generating component (20) that is housed inside the case, is exposed to the outside through the opening hole (i.e., through the open bottom) , and is in thermal contact with an external heat dissipator (60) ; and an annular sealing member (12) that is disposed at a peripheral edge portion of the opening hole and is interposed between the case and an attached member (10) that is attached to the case. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any optimal desired shape for the sealing member in Kobayashi, including as claimed, in order to predictably achieve desired sealing characteristics and material consumption, while not exceeding targeted production costs of the device, since t he rational that a particular shape is a design choice may be found in legal precedent. See In re Dailey , 357 F. 2d669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Kobayashi discloses a heat dissipating plate (10) that covers the opening hole and is made of a material with higher thermal conductivity than the case (50) (inherently, since the case (50) is made of a synthetic resin (par. [0061]), wherein the heat dissipating plate (10) is made of aluminum or aluminum alloy (par. [0048]) , wherein the heat generating component (20) is mounted in thermal contact with an inner surface of the heat dissipating plate (10) , and an outer surface of the heat dissipating plate (10) is in thermal contact with the external heat dissipator (60), (Figs. 1 and 2) . Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Kobayashi discloses (Figs. 2 and 3) an insulating member (70) (inherently will provide at least some thermal insulation) that covers the heat generating component (20) from above, and the insulating member (70) is attached to the case (50) so that the insulating member prevents separation of the heat generating component (20) from the heat dissipator (60) (inherently, since as best understood, the entire device should be disassembled (including removal of said member (70)) in order to provide access to said heat generating component (20)) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim 5, as best understood , is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi alone. Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Yamaguchi discloses (Figs. 1-4) that the attached member (2) is composed of the heat dissipating plate (2) , a housing groove (35) for housing the sealing member (4) is formed in a bottom surface of the case (30), and the sealing member (4) is interposed between the heat dissipating plate (2) and the bottom surface of the case (30) , which is mounted on the housing groove (35) . Yamaguchi does not disclose that a housing groove for housing the sealing member is formed in the inner surface of the heat dissipating plate . I t would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an additional housing groove in the inner surface of the heat dissipating plate (i.e., duplication), in order to enhance retention of the sealing member, or alternatively, to have provided the housing groove on the inner surface of the heat dissipating plate instead of in the bottom surface of the housing member (i.e., reversal), since it appears that the invention would have performed equally well with such a design , since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. , 193 USPQ 8. Also, it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Einstein , 8 USPQ 167; In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, because of the teachings of various housings with diverse electrical and/or electronic components with cooling arrangements. Furter, the US 6894898 , US 6525941 , US 7133288 , and US 6404633 teach heat sink / fan cooling arrangements for PCB mounted electronic components. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2047 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jayprakash N. Gandhi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT /Anatoly Vortman/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2835