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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN203912410 to Ruan et al. (Ruan).
Regarding claim 1, Ruan teaches a case (10, Figure 1) configured to accommodate a printed circuit board therein and comprising a case opening formed on one side of the case (opening at 20, Figures 1-3 and shown in Figure 4) and a frame provided along an edge of the case opening (121, 122, and123, Figures 2-3); a case cover configured to cover at least a portion of the frame and the case opening and having a rear surface facing inside of the case (20, Figures 1-3); and a gasket configured to seal a gap between the case cover and the frame (40, Figure 4), wherein the frame comprises: a first surface disposed to face the rear surface of the case cover (top of 122 and right side of 122 next to 40, Figures 2-3), and a second surface extending from the first surface toward the inside of the case (at least the top surface of 123 under 40, Figures 2-3), and wherein the gasket comprises: a first sealing portion configured to be in contact with the rear surface of the case cover and the first surface of the frame (shown in Figure 3 at the top and left side of 40), and a second sealing portion configured to be in contact with the second surface of the frame (also shown in Figure 3 at the bottom side of 40).
Regarding claim 6, Ruan teaches wherein the case cover comprises a cover rib extending from the rear surface of the case cover toward the inside of the case and disposed to face the second surface of the frame (221, Figures 2-3) , and wherein the second sealing portion is disposed between the cover rib and the second surface of the frame (shown in Figure 3).
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.
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) 2-5, 7, 10, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruan in view of U.S. PGPUB 20130146323 to Yamaguchi et al. (Yamaguchi).
Regarding claims 2 and 18-20, Ruan teaches wherein the first sealing portion comprises: a base coupled to the rear surface of the case cover (shown in Figure 3) and wherein the first surface of the frame comprises: a base contact portion in contact with the base, and a recess configured to be recessed from the base contact portion in a direction away from the base to allow the protrusion to be inserted therein (protrusion and recess shown in Figure 3).
Ruan is silent on a protrusion protruding from the base toward the first surface of the frame.
Yamaguchi teaches a protrusion protruding from the base toward the first surface of the frame (52a, 52,54, and/or 34, Figure 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ruan with the teachings of Yamaguchi to provide a protrusion protruding from the base toward the first surface of the frame. Doing so would increase the sealing properties of the seal.
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Ruan teaches wherein the protrusion is configured to be pressed against one surface of the recess by being inserted into the recess and elastically deformed in a direction of being pressed by the one surface of the recess (orientation shown in Figure 3 of Ruan).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Ruan teaches wherein the base contact portion comprises: an outer base contact portion located on an outer side in an edge direction of the case opening with respect to the recess, and an inner base contact portion located on an inner side in the edge direction of the case opening with respect to the recess, and wherein the outer base contact portion and the inner base contact portion each are configured to be in contact with the base (orientation shown in Figure 3 of Ruan).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Ruan teaches wherein the protrusion is formed along a circumference of the case cover, and wherein the recess is formed along a circumference of the case opening (shown in Figures 3-4 of Ruan).
Regarding claim 7, Ruan teaches wherein the second sealing portion comprises: a base supported on the cover rib and disposed to be spaced apart from the second surface of the frame (shown in Figure 3)
Ruan is silent on a protrusion protruding from the base toward the second surface of the frame, and wherein the protrusion is configured to be pressed against the second surface of the frame.
Yamaguchi teaches a protrusion protruding from the base toward the second surface of the frame, and wherein the protrusion is configured to be pressed against the second surface of the frame (52a, 52,54, and/or 34, Figure 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ruan with the teachings of Yamaguchi to provide a protrusion protruding from the base toward the second surface of the frame, and wherein the protrusion is configured to be pressed against the second surface of the frame. Doing so would increase the sealing properties of the seal.
Regarding claim 10, Ruan is silent on wherein the case cover further comprises a fixing rib extending from the cover rib toward the second surface of the frame, and wherein the second sealing portion further comprises a fixing groove into which the fixing rib is inserted so that the second sealing portion and the case cover are coupled.
Yamaguchi teaches wherein the case cover further comprises a fixing rib extending from the cover rib toward the second surface of the frame, and wherein the second sealing portion further comprises a fixing groove into which the fixing rib is inserted so that the second sealing portion and the case cover are coupled (protrusion and groove on 14 as well as on 12 with interaction shown in Figure 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ruan with the teachings of Yamaguchi to provide wherein the case cover further comprises a fixing rib extending from the cover rib toward the second surface of the frame, and wherein the second sealing portion further comprises a fixing groove into which the fixing rib is inserted so that the second sealing portion and the case cover are coupled. Doing so would assist in keeping the device together in the closed position.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruan in view of Yamaguchi and U.S. PGPUB 20190292777 to Torrabias Cantal (Torrabias).
Regarding claim 8, Ruan is silent on wherein the protrusion comprises a plurality of ribs, and wherein the plurality of ribs are configured to elastically deform towards the base when pressed against the second surface of the frame.
Torrabias teaches wherein the protrusion comprises a plurality of ribs, and wherein the plurality of ribs are configured to elastically deform towards the base when pressed against the second surface of the frame (shown at 13, Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ruan with the teachings of Torrabias to provide wherein the protrusion comprises a plurality of ribs, and wherein the plurality of ribs are configured to elastically deform towards the base when pressed against the second surface of the frame. Doing so would increase the sealing properties of the seal.
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Ruan is silent on wherein the plurality of ribs are disposed apart from each other by a predetermined distance (shown in Figure 1 of Torrabias).
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruan in view of CN202835659 to Ruan (659).
Regarding claim 11, Ruan is silent on wherein a machine room in which a compressor is disposed, wherein the case further comprises: an outer case disposed in the machine room, and an inner case provided inside the outer case to form an accommodation space in which the printed circuit board is accommodated.
659 teaches wherein a machine room in which a compressor is disposed, wherein the case further comprises: an outer case disposed in the machine room, and an inner case provided inside the outer case to form an accommodation space in which the printed circuit board is accommodated (compressor in Figure 4 with accommodation space 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ruan with the teachings of 659 to provide wherein a machine room in which a compressor is disposed, wherein the case further comprises: an outer case disposed in the machine room, and an inner case provided inside the outer case to form an accommodation space in which the printed circuit board is accommodated. Doing so would provide isolation between the components.
Regarding claim 14, Ruan is silent on wherein the outer case comprises a metal material, and the inner case comprises a resin material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use metal and resin, since it has been held to be within tire 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.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruan.
Regarding claim 16, Ruan is silent on w wherein the case cover comprises: an outer cover comprising a metal material; and an inner cover coupled to the outer cover to cover the case opening between the outer cover and the case and comprising a resin material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use metal and resin, since it has been held to be within tire 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.
Regarding claim 17, Ruan teaches wherein the gasket is coupled to a rear surface of the inner cover to seal a gap between the inner cover and the frame (shown in Figure 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12-13, 15 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art cited discloses the general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)272-2055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 574-272-6460. 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.
/STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights