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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 1-3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0208617 A1 (Kita).
Kita discloses, referring primarily to figures 1 & 2, a circuit structure (1) that is for a vehicle ([0042]) and includes a circuit element (15) having a plurality of terminals (19, 20), the circuit structure comprising: an insulating plate member (10), the circuit element being mounted on one surface of the insulating plate member; and a first heat dissipation plate member (16) provided on the other surface of the insulating plate member, wherein the insulating plate member is provided with a first through hole (17B) in which a first busbar (12) connected to a first terminal (19) of the circuit element is housed, and the first busbar is in contact with the first heat dissipation plate member ([0059]) [claim 1], wherein the insulating plate member is provided with a second through hole (17A), and the first heat dissipation plate member is exposed from the one surface side of the insulating plate member through the second through hole [claim 2], wherein the insulating plate member is provided with a recessed portion in which a second busbar (11) connected to a second terminal of the circuit element is installed, on the one surface ([0054]) [claim 9], wherein the insulating plate member is provided with a recessed portion (17A) in which a second busbar (11) connected to a second terminal of the circuit element is installed, on the one surface ([0054]) [claim 3].
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) 8, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kita in view of US 2017/0079132 A1 (Bayerer).
Regarding claim 8, Kita discloses the claimed invention as described above with respect to claim 1 except Kita does not specifically discloses that the first heat dissipation plate member has electric conductivity [claim 8]. However, it is well known in the art to form a metal heat sink to be electrically conductive as evidenced by Bayerer ([0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to use an electrically conductive metal heat sink as the metal heat sink in the invention of Kita as is known in the art and evidenced by Bayerer. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a common ground for the device to avoid unwanted shorting (Bayerer [0064]).
Regarding claim 12, Kita discloses the claimed invention as described above with respect to claim 2 except Kita does not specifically discloses that the first heat dissipation plate member has electric conductivity [claim 12]. However, it is well known in the art to form a metal heat sink to be electrically conductive as evidenced by Bayerer ([0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to use an electrically conductive metal heat sink as the metal heat sink in the invention of Kita as is known in the art and evidenced by Bayerer. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a common ground for the device to avoid unwanted shorting (Bayerer [0064]).
Regarding claim 13, Kita discloses the claimed invention as described above with respect to claim 3 except Kita does not specifically discloses that the first heat dissipation plate member has electric conductivity [claim 13]. However, it is well known in the art to form a metal heat sink to be electrically conductive as evidenced by Bayerer ([0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to use an electrically conductive metal heat sink as the metal heat sink in the invention of Kita as is known in the art and evidenced by Bayerer. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a common ground for the device to avoid unwanted shorting (Bayerer [0064]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 10, 11, and 14-17 are 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: Claim 11 states the limitation “an insulating thread is interposed between the first heat dissipation plate member and the second heat dissipation plate member on the other surface of the insulating plate member.” This limitation, in conjunction with the other claimed features, was neither found to be disclosed in, nor suggested by the prior art. Claims 4, 10, and 14 state the limitation “a rib provided along an edge of the third through hole protrudes from the other surface of the insulating plate member, and the first heat dissipation plate member is provided with a fitting through hole to which the rib is internally fitted.” This limitation, in conjunction with the other claimed features, was neither found to be disclosed in, nor suggested by the prior art. Claims 5 and 15 state the limitation “wherein the first terminal radiates a larger amount of heat than the second terminal during an operation of the circuit element.” This Claim 6, 7, 16, and 17 state the limitation “an insulating thread is interposed between the first heat dissipation plate member and the second heat dissipation plate member on the other surface of the insulating plate member.” This limitation, in conjunction with the other claimed features, was neither found to be disclosed in, nor suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY C NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1932. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15-15:15 M-F.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at (571)272-2342. 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.
JEREMY C. NORRIS
Examiner
Art Unit 2847
/JEREMY C NORRIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847