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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/15/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-5, 9, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. (US 2021/0011534 – hereinafter, “Yin”) in view of Degtiarenko (US 6,604,575).
With respect to claim 1, Yin teaches (In Figs 1-3, 5) an electronic computing device for an assistance system of a motor vehicle (Title), the device comprising: a first housing (Fig 5, 15), wherein at least a first processor device (“Functional component” 41 further described as a CPU in ¶ 0047), of the assistance system is arranged in a first internal space of the first housing (See Fig 5), wherein the first processor device generates heat at least in the operation ([0054]); a cooling device (12) for cooling the first processor device, wherein the cooling device is formed on a first outer wall (Horizontal wall of 15) of the first housing (12 is formed on the top surface of 15, see Fig 5), wherein a separate second housing (14) with a second internal space is arranged stacked on the first housing viewed along a vertical direction of the electronic computing device (See Fig 5), wherein at least a second processor device (41) of the assistance system is arranged in the second internal space (See Fig 5), wherein the second processor device generates heat at least in the operation (¶ 0054), wherein the second housing is arranged on the cooling device (12) at least in certain areas (See Fig 5) with a second outer wall (Horizontal wall of 14) opposing the first outer wall (Horizontal wall of 15) such that the cooling device (12) is bounded by the first outer wall (Horizontal wall of 15) and the second outer wall (Horizontal wall of 14) at least in certain areas and is additionally formed for cooling the second processor device (See Fig 5, 12 is formed to cool the second processor device), wherein a columnar structure (¶ 0061, “oval”) of the cooling device in a cooling area of the cooling device is formed on a first outer side of the first outer wall (Oval fin 12 is formed on the outer side of the horizontal wall of 15, see Fig 5), and wherein a columnar second structure of the cooling device is formed on a second outer side of the second outer wall opposing the first outer side (Another oval fin is formed on the outer side of the horizontal wall of 14, see Fig 5).
Yin fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the columnar structure and the columnar second structure are formed engaging with each other such that columns of one structure extend into clearances between columns of the other structure, and wherein the columnar structure is not formed on the second outer side, and the columnar second structure is not formed on the first outer side.
Degtiarenko, however, teaches (In Fig 1) a columnar structure (22, Col. 2, l. 31, “needles 22”) and columnar second structure (16, Col. 2, l. 27, “needles 16”) are formed engaging with each other such that columns of one structure extend into clearances between columns of the other structure, and wherein the columnar structure (22) is not formed on a second outer side (14), and the columnar second structure (16) is not formed on a first outer side (Surface of 20 from which 22 extends, see Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Degtiarenko with that of Yin such that, in Yin the columnar structure and the columnar second structure are formed engaging with each other such that columns of one structure extend into clearances between columns of the other structure, and wherein the columnar structure is not formed on the second outer side, and the columnar second structure is not formed on the first outer side, as taught by Degtiarenko, since doing so would provide space between the ends of the columnar structure and the second outer side, and between the columnar second structure and the first outer side which could increase the surface areas of the columnar and second columnar structures and would also prevent, for example, the columnar structure from damaging the second outer wall in the event that there was an impact to the first outer wall.
With respect to claim 2, Yin further teaches that the second housing (14) is non-destructively detachably arranged on the first housing (15, where 14 is detachably arranged on 15 via a fin and screw arrangement. See ¶ 0063, “A side that is of the heat dissipation fin 12 and that is connected to the top wall 14 and the bottom wall 15…is fixedly connected to the top wall 14 and the bottom wall 15 with a rivet or a threaded connecting piece (such as a bolt or a screw)”).
With respect to claim 4, Yin further teaches that the cooling device (12) is formed as a fluidic cooling device with a cooling fluid (12 are fins which have air which flows over the fins and thus 12 is formed as a fluidic cooling device with a cooling fluid).
With respect to claim 5, Yin further teaches that a first top side of the first processor device is contacted with a first inner side of the first outer wall via a first heat conducting element, and wherein a second top side of the second processor device is contacted with a second inner side of the second outer wall via second heat conducting element (See Fig A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
405
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, Yin further teaches wherein the first housing and the second housing are formed at least partly of aluminum (¶ 0065).
With respect to claim 11, Yin further teaches that the columnar structure and the columnar second structure engage with each other (See Fig 5 which shows the second columnar structure extends in the clearances between the first columnar structure in the assembled state and vice versa).
With respect to claims 12-13, Yin (Figs 1-5) as modified by Degtiarenko teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest a cooling inlet and a cooling outlet are formed on a rear side of the first housing, wherein the cooling inlet is connected to the cooling outlet via the cooling device (Cl. 12), wherein the cooling device comprises a cooling area, wherein the cooling inlet is connected to the cooling area via a coolant directing element, and wherein the cooling outlet is connected to the cooling area via a coolant directing element (Cl. 13).
Yin Fig 10B, however, teaches a cooling inlet (73) and a cooling outlet (72) are formed on a side of a first housing (See Fig 10B), wherein the cooling inlet is connected to the cooling outlet via a cooling device (75), wherein the cooling device comprises a cooling area (See Fig B below), wherein the cooling inlet (73) is connected to the cooling area via a coolant directing element (752, see Fig B below), and wherein the cooling outlet (72) is connected to the cooling area via a coolant directing element (752, see Fig B below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yin Fig 10B with that of Yin Figs 1-5, such that Yin Figs 1-5 includes a cooling inlet and a cooling outlet are formed on a side of the first housing, wherein the cooling inlet is connected to the cooling outlet via the cooling device, wherein the cooling device comprises a cooling area, wherein the cooling inlet is connected to the cooling area via a coolant directing element, and wherein the cooling outlet is connected to the cooling area via a coolant directing element, as taught by Yin Fig 10B, since doing so would allow for the first and second processor devices to be cooled via a liquid coolant which is known to dissipate more heat versus using air based cooling.
With respect to the limitations that require the inlet and outlet to be formed on a rear side of the first housing, it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts is obvious1 and, accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inlet and outlet be on a rear side of the housing since doing so would allow for the computing device of Lin to be placed into the vehicle such that side walls of the computing device are immediately adjacent or abutting one or more elements of the vehicle.
PNG
media_image2.png
499
871
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 14, Yin further teaches an assistance system for a motor vehicle (Title) with at least one electronic computing device according to claim 1.
With respect to claim 15, Yin teaches (In Figs 1-3, 5) a method for producing an electronic computing device for a motor vehicle (Title) according to claim 1, wherein the first processor device (41) is provided in a first housing (15), wherein the second processor device (Another of 41) is provided in the separate second housing (14), and wherein a cooling device (12) for cooling the first processor device and the second processor device is formed between the respective outer walls of the housings (See Fig 4A).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin in view of Degtiarenko and further in view of Perwass et al. (US 2021/0075962 – hereinafter, “Perwass”).
With respect to claim 3, Yin as modified by Degtiarenko teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest a first assistance function of the assistance system is provided in the first processor device and wherein a second assistance function of the assistance system is provided in the second processor device wherein the second assistance function is formed different from the first assistance function.
Perwass, however, teaches a first processing device (140) which provides a first assistance function (Reduce camera raw data) and a second processing device (125) which provides a second assistance function (processing images) wherein the second assistance function is different from the first assistance function (Reducing raw data vs. processing images).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Perwass with that of Yin such that, in Yin a first assistance function of an assistance system is provided in the first processor device and wherein a second assistance function of the assistance system is provided in the second processor device wherein the second assistance function is formed different from the first assistance function, as taught by Perwass, since doing so would allow for the first and second processor devices of Yin to provide different functions to the electronic computing device thus allowing for the electronic computing device to have diverse functions.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin in view of Degtiarenko and further in view of Lin (US 2008/0320196).
With respect to claim 6, Yin as modified by Degtiarenko teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest the limitations of claim 6.
Lin, however, teaches (In Fig 3) a first processor device (14) is electrically connected to a second processor device (30) via a contact device (20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lin with that of Yin, such that, in Yin, the first processor devices is electrically connected to the second processor device via a contact device, as taught by Lin, since doing so would allow for the first and second processor devices to communicate with each other.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin in view of Degtiarenko in view of Lin and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 6,353,536 – hereinafter, “Nakamura”).
With respect to claims 7-8, Yin as modified by Degtiarenko and Lin teaches the limitations of claim 6 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the contact device is formed as a plug connection (Cl. 7), wherein the contact device is passed through the first outer wall and the second outer wall and wherein the contact device is formed outside of a cooling area of the cooling device (Cl. 8).
Nakamura, however teaches a contact device (45) is formed as a plug connection, wherein the contact device (45) is passed through a first outer wall (Outer wall of 36, see Fig 2) and a second outer wall (5a, when 45 is plugged into 14, it will pass through 5a since 14 is recessed above the second outer wall as shown in Fig 3 ) and wherein the contact device (45) is formed outside of a cooling area (55) of a cooling device (See Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nakamura with that of Yin as modified by Lin, such that, in modified Yin, the contact device is formed as a plug connection, wherein the contact device is passed through the first outer wall and the second outer wall and wherein the contact device is formed outside of a cooling area of the cooling device, as taught by Nakamura, since doing so would allow for the first processor device and the second processor device to be electrically connected in a way that does not interfere with the cooling airflow in Yin.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin in view of Degtiarenko and further in view of Davidescu et al. (US 2018/0189205 – hereinafter, “Davidescu”).
With respect to claim 16, Yin as modified by Degtiarenko teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest that the second processor devices is smaller than the first processor device.
Davidescu, however, teaches a second processor devices is smaller than a first processor device (¶ 0021, “The processor CPU1 is of a smaller size than the processor CPU0.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Davidescu with that of Yin, such that, in Yin the second processor devices is smaller than the first processor device, as taught by Davidescu, since doing so would reduce the footprint of one of the processor devices within the computing device thus allowing for additional components within the computing device.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin in view of Degtiarenko and further in view of Orr (US 5,909,357).
With respect to claim 17, Yin as modified by Degtiarenko teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein electrical energy supply of the second processor device is realized via the first processor device such that additional plug contacts are not formed on the second housing.
Orr, however, teaches (In Figs 1-3) wherein electrical energy supply of a second processor device (Video module 16) is realized via a first processor device (Master mother module 16) such that additional plug contacts are not formed on a second housing (Housing of video module 16, see Figs 1-3 where power for the video module processing device is provided through the master mother module processing device by way of 40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Orr with that of Yin, such that, in Yin electrical energy supply of the second processor device is realized via the first processor device such that additional plug contacts are not formed on the second housing, as taught by Orr, since doing so would provide a redundant electrical connection to the second processor device which can be used in the event that the primary electrical connection is faulty.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to claim 1 (Present remarks pages 9-12) the Examiner agrees and notes the previous 102(a) rejection to claim 1 in view of Yin has been withdrawn. However, a new grounds rejection to claim 1 in view of Yin and Degtiarenko is provided above where Degtiarenko is believed to cure the deficiencies of Yin.
Accordingly, claim 1 is believed to be prima facie obvious in view of Yin and Degtiarenko.
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to claims 16-17 (Present remarks pages 12-13) the Examiner notes the new rejections thereto. Indeed, newly cited Davidescu is believed to teach the limitations of claim 16 and newly cited Orr is believed to teach the limitations of claim 17.
Accordingly, claim 16 is believed to be prima facie obvious in view of Yin, Degtiarenko, and Davidescu, and claim 17 is believed to be prima facie obvious in view of Yin, Degtiarenko, and Orr.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M PAPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am - 6pm EST.
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 at 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.
/ZACHARY PAPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
1 In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)
Prosecution Insights