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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendment filed on 01/02/2026 has been considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omote et al. (US 20190373750: “Omote” hereinafter) in view of Miyazaki et al. (WO 2016194702; “Miyazaki” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Omote discloses an electronic device comprising: a base (300); a case (200) forming an accommodation space (enclosed space formed by the casings 200 and 300, figs. 4) together with the base (fig. 4); an electronic component (420) accommodated in the accommodation space (fig. 4); a plate-shaped member (410) at which the electronic component is disposed (fig. 4); and an elastic body (500; “molded component 500 is made of an elastomer”, par. [0040]) sandwiched between the base and the case (“the third part 530 including the first protruding portion 533 and the second protruding portion 535 is sandwiched between the inner perimeter area 260 (first perimeter area) of the first casing 200 and the inner perimeter area 320 (second perimeter area) of the second casing 300 in the Z-direction over the entire circumference”, par. [0045]; also see par. [0027]), wherein the elastic body includes a holding portion (510, 520) to hold the plate-shaped member (par. [0044], figs 4-6).
Omote does not explicitly disclose the elastic body covers at least part of the electronic component.
Miyazaki teaches an electronic device comprising an elastic body (elastic member 30 including a first elastic member 31 and a second elastic member 32) covers at least part of an electronic component (electronic component including sensor 8 that disposed on the PCB 20 are covered by the elastic member 30 or 31 or 32, figs 1A-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Omote to have the elastic body covers at least part of the electronic component as taught by Miyazaki because such modification protects the electronic component and reduces the effect of vibration on the electronic component.
Regarding claim 2, Omote in view of Miyazaki (relied on Omote) discloses wherein the holding portion (510, 520) holds an end part of the plate-shaped member (par. [0044], figs 4-6).
Regarding claim 3, Omote in view of Miyazaki (relied on Omote) discloses wherein, in a cross- sectional view (fig. 4), when a side toward a center of the accommodation space is defined as an inner side, the end part (404; figs 4, 6) of the plate-shaped member (400) is located on the inner side relative to an innermost position of a region in the elastic body (500) sandwiched between the base and the case (at least one end 404 of the plate located on the inner side relative to an innermost position of a region in the elastic body 500 sandwich between the casings 200 and 300 as depicted in claim 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 4, Omote in view of Miyazaki (relied on Omote) discloses wherein, in a cross-sectional view, when a side toward a center of the accommodation space is defined as an inner side, the holding portion (510, 520) is located on the inner side relative to an innermost position of a region in the elastic body sandwiched between the base and the case (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Omote in view of Miyazaki (relied on Omote) discloses wherein, in a cross-sectional view, when a side toward a center of the accommodation space is defined as an inner side, an inner end of the elastic body (500) is located on the inner side relative to an innermost position of a region in the elastic body (500) sandwiched between the base and the case (figs 4-6).
Regarding claim 6, Omote in view of Miyazaki (relied on Omote) discloses wherein a cut (cut out area in between the first part 510 and the second part 520 that hold the board 410, figs 4-6) is formed in the holding portion (510, 520, figs 4-6), to hold the plate-shaped member (410) by sandwiching the plate-shaped member therebetween (figs 4-6).
Regarding claim 7, Omote in view of Miyazaki (relied on Omote) discloses wherein one of the base or the case (200) includes a protruding portion (260), and the elastic body (500) is sandwiched between an end part of the protruding portion (260) and the other of the base (300) (figs. 5-6) or the case.
Regarding claim 12, Omote in view of Miyazaki (relied on Omote) discloses wherein the holding portion (510, 520) holds the plate-shaped member (410) over an entire circumference of the plate-shaped member (figs 3-6; “the integrally molded component 500 has a rectangular loop shape extending along the lower end 203 of the first casing 200 and the upper end 304 of the second casing 300”, par. [0040]).
Claim(s) 1, 6-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki (JP H0679193: “Hideki” hereinafter) in view of Miyazaki et al. (WO 2016194702; “Miyazaki” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Hideki discloses an electronic device comprising an electronic device comprising: a base (31; fig. 6); a case (32; fig. 6) forming an accommodation space together with the base (fig. 6); an electronic component (15) accommodated in the accommodation space (fig. 6); a plate-shaped member (14) at which the electronic component (15) is disposed (fig. 6); and an elastic body (holding member 13, 33; “ a waterproof, elastic and insulating holding member”, par. [0006] of machine translated document, also see par [0008]) sandwiched between the base and the case (fig. 6), the elastic body (33) including a holding portion (34) to hold the plate-shaped member (14) (fig. 6).
Hideki does not explicitly disclose the elastic body covers at least part of the electronic component.
Miyazaki teaches an electronic device comprising an elastic body (elastic member 30 including a first elastic member 31 and a second elastic member 32) covers at least part of an electronic component (electronic component including sensor 8 that disposed on the PCB 20, figs 1A-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hideki to have the elastic body covers at least part of the electronic component as taught by Miyazaki because such modification protects the electronic component and reduces the effect of vibration on the electronic component.
Regarding claim 2, Hideki in view of Miyazaki (relied on Hideki) discloses wherein the holding portion (34) holds an end part of the plate-shaped member (14) (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Hideki in view of Miyazaki (relied on Hideki) discloses wherein a cut (cut-out portion in the flange 34 into which circuit board 14 is inserted or fixed, fig. 6) is formed in the holding portion, to hold the plate-shaped member (14) by sandwiching the plate-shaped member therebetween (par. [0015], fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Hideki in view of Miyazaki (relied on Hideki) discloses wherein one of the base (31) or the case (32) includes a protruding portion (protruding portions 35, 37 of base 31 and protruding portions 36 and 38 of the case 32, fig. 6 and Par. [0015]), and the elastic body is sandwiched between an end part of the protruding portion and the other of the base or the case (fig. 5, Par. [0015]).
Regarding claim 8, Hideki in view of Miyazaki (relied on Hideki) discloses wherein the base (31) includes a first protruding portion (35, 37), the case (32) includes a second protruding portion (36, 38), and the elastic body (33) is sandwiched between an end part of the first protruding portion and an end part of the second protruding portion (fig. 6, par. [0014]- [0015]).
Regarding claim 9, Hideki in view of Miyazaki (relied on Hideki) discloses wherein each of the end part of the first protruding portion (35, 38) and the end part of the second protruding portion (36, 38) is formed into a tapered shape (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Hideki in view of Miyazaki (relied on Hideki) discloses wherein, in a cross-sectional view, when a side toward a center of the accommodation space is defined as an inner side, an inner end of the elastic body (33) is located on the inner side relative to an inner end of at least one of the first protruding portion (35, 37) or the second protruding portion (36, 38) (fig. 6).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki in view of Miyazaki as applied to claim 8 and, in further view of Tokui (JP 2021019158: “Tokui” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 10, Hideki in view of Miyazaki (relied on Hideki) discloses the elastic body (33) is sandwiched between an end part of the first protruding portion and an end part of the second protruding portion (fig. 6, par. [0014]- [0015]).
Hideki in view of Miyazaki does not explicitly disclose wherein one of a width of the end part of the first protruding portion or a width of the end part of the second protruding portion is larger than the other thereof.
Tokui teaches an electronic device comprising: a base (12); a case (11) forming an accommodation space together with the base (fig. 1); wherein the base (12) includes a first protruding portion (122), the case (11) includes a second protruding portion (113); wherein one of a width of an end part of the first protruding portion (123) or a width of the end part of the second protruding portion (113) is larger than the other thereof (figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hideki in view of Miyazaki to have one of a width of the end part of the first protruding portion or a width of the end part of the second protruding portion is larger than the other thereof as suggested by Tokui because such modification provides desired pressure from above and below by the first protruding and the second protruding. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the protruding portions of Hideki to have different width of the first and second protruding portions, since changing the shape/size of the protruding portions appears to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omote in view of Miyazaki as applied to claim 1 and, in further view of Yamase (US 20180301796: “Yamase” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 13, Omote in view of Miyazaki discloses the device as claimed in claim 1.
Omote in view of Miyazaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic component is a patch antenna.
Yamase teaches an electronic device comprising a base (5); a case (6); a plate or circuit board (7) disposed in an accommodation space formed together by the base and the case (fig. 1); a patch antenna (patch antenna 10, par. [0033]) disposed on the plate/circuit board (7) (Par. [0033], fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Omote in view of Miyazaki to accommodate the patch antenna of Yamase in the accommodating space or on the plate of Omote because such modification protect the Patch antenna from external impact.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki in view of Miyazaki as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Yamase (US 20180301796: “Yamase” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 13, Hideki in view of Miyazaki discloses the device as claimed in claim 1.
Hideki in view of Miyazaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic component is a patch antenna.
Yamase teaches an electronic device comprising a base (5); a case (6); a plate or circuit board (7) disposed in an accommodation space formed together by the base and the case (fig. 1); a patch antenna (patch antenna 10, par. [0033]) disposed on the plate/circuit board (7) (Par. [0033], fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hideki in view of Miyazaki to accommodate the patch antenna of Yamase in the accommodating space or on the plate of Hideki because such modification protect the Patch antenna from external impact.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13 have been considered but are moot; whereas new rejections have been presented to read on the amended claim language.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAGAR SHRESTHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1236. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-6:30 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, Allen Parker can be reached at (303)297-4722. 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.
/SAGAR SHRESTHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841