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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “D” (¶[0034], l. 3).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “W” (fig. 1).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: para. [0018, line 3 mentions “claim 14” which likely not to be claim 14 if the instant application matures into a patent.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 9, and 12-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 10 (2 places) requires “the opening.” Based upon the claim, “the opening” has antecedence in “an opening” of line 6 rather than “a vent or cooling-fan opening.” The examiner suggests naming as “shield opening” to differentiate from “a vent or cooling-fan opening”;
Claim 14, line 6, “the wall” should be “the profile wall”; and
Claim 14, line 15, “the source of fluid” should be “the expected source of the fluid”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 9, and 12-15 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 1, line 1 and 6 each require “a vent or cooling-fan opening.” Are these the same or different elements being claimed?
Claim 1, lines 12 and 14, “the vent” lacks antecedent basis. Did Applicant intend for “the vent” to have antecedence in “a vent or cooling-fan opening” of line 1?
Claim 9, line 1 requires “An electronic control unit (ECU) housing” and Claim 1, line 1-2 requires “a housing.” Claim 9 incorporates by reference the limitations of claim 1. What of any is the relationship of the “ECU housing” of claim 9 and the “housing” of claim 1?
Claim 9, line 3 requires “a vent”, Claim 1, lines 1-2 requires “a vent or cooling-fan opening” and Claim 1, lines 12 and 14 require “the vent.” Claim 9 incorporates by reference the limitations of claim 1. Is “a vent” of claim 9, the same or different from claimed element from the “vent or cooling-fan opening” and “the vent” of claim 1?
Claim 9, line 3 requires “channels.” Claim 9 incorporates by reference the limitations of claim 1. Are the channels of claim 9 in addition or include the channel of claim 1, line 15?
Claim 13, lines 1-2 requires “a set of shields.” Are these shields in addition to or include “the shield” of claim 9? Does each of the shields have the properties of “a shield” of claim 1? and
Claim 14, lines 9 and 11, “the ECU housing” lacks antecedent basis. It is noted that line 2 requires “a housing of an electronic control unit (ECU).” Should “the ECU housing” be “the housing of the ECU”?
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 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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (CN 202285471) and Barbour (WO 2020/227811).
With respect to Claim 1, Lin teaches a shield (fig. 2, 3,4) for a vent opening (fig. 1, 2) in a housing (1) for electronic components (“for electronic components” is intended use and is not positively claimed), the shield comprising: an outwardly projectable contoured wall (see fig. 4) of pressed (“pressed” is a product-by-process limitation in a product claim, where only the structure defined by the process determines patentability, see MPEP 2113) configured for substantially covering (see fig. 2) the vent opening and, at edges (see fig. 2, top and side edges of 3,4 against 1) of the contoured wall, interfacing (see fig. 2, top and side edges of 4 against 12) with the housing; and an opening (fig. 2, bottom of 4) for communicating with a vent opening (2) to, in use, divert airflow thereto or therefrom while ingress of fluid (fig. 2, outer surface of 3,4 prevent fluid from entering 2) is mitigated by the contoured wall; wherein the contoured wall is profiled to taper from a narrow end (fig. 2, top of 4), opposite to the opening, and widen toward (see fig. 2) the opening; wherein the edges of the contoured wall are configured to contact (fig. 2, left right sides of 3 adjacent to 4) with the housing about the vent on at least two sides (fig. 2) for sealing therewith; wherein at least one of the edges includes an interfacing feature (fig. 3, hole in 3 for 8) for removably coupling to the housing or vent; and wherein the interfacing feature is configured to cooperate with a channel provided in the housing (“configured to” is not positively claiming “a channel provided in the housing”, but a channel could be a hole in 1 to accept 8). Lin fails to disclose the shield comprising a metal sheet. Barbour teaches the shield (fig, 21, 62) comprising a metal sheet (¶[0090], l. 4). 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 fabricate the shield from an economical material such as metal sheets, 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.
With respect to Claim 5, Lin further teaches the interfacing feature includes surface features pressed in (pressed in is a product-by-process limitation where only the structure resulting from the process determines patentability, see MPEP 2113. “pressed in” can be punching a hole thru 3) the sheet metal selected from at least one of: holes (fig. 3, hole in 3 for 8).
Claims 9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (CN 202285471), Barbour (WO 2020/227811) and Huang (US 6,735,079).
With respect to Claim 9, Lin and Barbour disclose the shield of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Lin fails to disclose an electronic control unit housing wherein the ECU housing is in combination with and configured to mount the shield of claim 1 over a vent for a fan unit thereof; and further comprising channels, about the vent on at least two sides, for receiving the edges of the contoured wall of the shield. Barbour teaches the housing (fig. 21, 12) is in combination with and configured to mount the shield (62) over a vent (15) for a fan unit (48) thereof. 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 housing of Lin with the housing, fan and shield of Barbour for the purpose of providing weather protection (¶[0096], l. 14) to vent openings in the housing. Lin and Barbour fail to disclose an electronic control unit housing and channels, about the vent on at least two sides, for receiving the edges of the contoured wall of the shield. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to for the housing to be any type of housing including an electronic control unit housing that requires protection from the external environment form operation of electronic components within the housing, since applicant has not disclosed that the housing being an ECU housing solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any type of housing that has vent openings needing to be protected from the external environment. Huang teaches channels (fig. 4, 4011,4013), about the vent (401) on at least two sides (see fig. 4), for receiving the edges (left and right sides of 453) of the wall (wall of 453) of the shield (453). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the interfacing and channel of Lin for that of Huang to allow for shield to be slidably mounted to the housing. The combination of Lin and Huang allows for the shield of Lin to be mounted using the edges of the shield to be held in place by the channels of Huang.
With respect to Claim 12, Lin discloses the claimed invention including an outwardly projecting dimension (outwardly projecting in horizontal direction) of the contoured wall is adapted to be within a footprint (see fig. 2, within footprint of sideview of 1) of the housing. Lin, Barbour and Huang fail to disclose an electronic control unit housing. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to for the housing to be any type of housing including an electronic control unit housing that requires protection from the external environment form operation of electronic components within the housing, since applicant has not disclosed that the housing being an ECU housing solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any type of housing that has vent openings needing to be protected from the external environment.
With respect to claim 13, Lin and Barbour disclose the claimed invention except for a set of shields is provided, with a range of dimensions, to be selected for attachment to the channels. Huang discloses a set of shields (451,453) is provided, with a range of dimensions (453 has different dimension than 451 because 453 has dimensioned holes), to be selected for attachment to the channels. 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 shield of Lin and Barbour with the set of shields of Huang so the particular shield can be customized for the cooling needs (col. 2, ll. 45-48) of the housing.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (CN 202285471), Aubas (US 2021/0372830), Barbour (WO 2020/227811) and Huang (US 6,735,079).
With respect to Claim 14, Lin teaches a method of mitigating ingress of fluid through a vent (fig. 1, 2) in a housing (1), the method comprising: determining a fixing orientation (see fig. 1, as shown) of the housing relative to an expected source of fluid (fig. 1, downward or diagonally downward); providing a pressed sheet metal protective cover (fig, 2, 3,4) having an outwardly projecting profile wall (4) and an opening (fig. 2, bottom of 4), wherein the wall is profiled to taper from a narrow end (fig. 2, top of 4), opposite to the opening, and widen (see fig. 2) toward the opening, and wherein edges (fig. 2, left and right sides of 3) of the profile wall include interfacing features (fig. 3, right and left sides of 3). Lin fails to disclose an electronic control unit, pressed sheet metal protective cover, channels about the vent of the ECU housing, and sliding the edges of the profile wall into the channels formed in the ECU housing about the vent so that the opening faces away from the expected source of fluid and, in use, the outwardly projecting profile wall deflects the source of fluid away from the vent. Aubas teaches an electronic control unit (fig. 1, 1) having a shield (7). 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 method of Lin with the electronic control unit of Aubas for the purpose of placing a shield on any type of housing including the ECU housing that requires protection from the external environment. Barbour teaches a sheet metal (¶[0090], l. 4) protective cover (fig. 21, 62) and so that the opening (fig. 26, opening on bottom of 62, fig. 27, opening on top of 62) faces away from the expected source of fluid (¶[0096, l. 14) and, in use, the outwardly projecting profile wall deflects (see figs. 21, 26, and 27) the source of fluid away from the vent (fig. 23, 15). 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 method of Lin and with the protective cover of Barbour for the purpose of orienting the protective covers to prevent rain from damaging the electronic components in the housing. 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 fabricate the shield from an economical material such as metal sheets, 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. Lin and Barbour fails to disclose a pressed sheet metal protective cover. Official Notice that a pressed sheet metal protective cover is well-known in the art. 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 method of Lin and Barbour with a well-known pressed sheet metal protective cover for the purpose of economical fabricating a protective cover by pressing (or drawing) when a large number of the protective covers are required. Huang teaches edges (sides of 453) of the profile wall (453) include interfacing features (planar surfaces of both sides of 453) for removably coupling (453 can slide out of 4011,4013) to channels (4011,4013) about the vent (401) of the housing (300); and sliding (fig. 4, 453 slides using 4011,4013) the edges of the profile wall into the channels formed in the housing about the vent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the interfacing and channel of Lin for that of Huang to allow for shield to be slidably mounted to the housing. The combination of Lin and Huang allows for the shield of Lin to be mounted using the edges of the shield to be held in place by the channels of Huang.
With respect to Claim 15, Lin, Barbour and Huang discloses the claimed invention except for the housing is fixed into a vehicle. Aubas teaches the housing is fixed into a vehicle (see title). 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 method of Lin, Barbour and Huang with the vehicle of Aubas for the purpose of using the housing in an application including that of a vehicle that requires the housing to be environmental protected while used in a vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6,930,882, 8,009,430, 2005/0237716 and 2013/0088833 discloses a shield with a closed narrow end and a wide end having an opening.
US 11,907,029 is in same patent family as WO 2020/227811.
US 11,486,743 is the issued patent of US 2021/0372830.
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 1/31/2026
/ROBERT J HOFFBERG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835