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 .
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okada et al. (JP 2015-088629).
In Re claim 1, Okada et al. disclose an electronic control apparatus, comprising: a board (101); an electronic component (102); a heat sink (103); a heat dissipation material (105) between the heat sink and the electronic component, wherein the heat sink includes a distal-side abutment portion and proximal-side abutment (see left and right projections 104 and end portions adjacent 101) in abutment with the board.
In Re claim 2, the left and right side 104 are not fixed to the board.
In Re claim 6, see figs. 1 and 2.
In Re claims 7-9, see heat sink (103) and abutment portions (see left and right projections 104 and end portions adjacent 101).
In Re claim 11, Okada et al. disclose the use of aluminum or iron for the heat sink housing (103).
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.
Claim 3-5, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. (JP 2015-088629) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato (US 20190140520).
In Re claims 3 and 4, the examiner points out that electrical terminals are inherently associated with circuit boards in electrical control units. However, Okada et al. is silent with respect to electrical connections to the circuit board.
Sato is related to the art of electronic control boards, and teaches fixing the board to electrical components via terminals (see first and second bus bars 211 and 212) to power and control the various electrical components. The electrical terminals are provided between the board (41), electrical components (D2, Tr), and abutment elements (see corners of 45) with a heat sink (45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the electronic control board of Okada et al. with electrical terminal connections, as taught by Sato et al., simply to enable proper intended function and operation of the electronic control board and its associated electrical components.
In Re claim 5, Sato further disclose a motor (20)
In Re claim 12, Okada et al. disclose a vehicle electronic control apparatus, comprising: a board (101); an electronic component (102); a heat sink (103); a heat dissipation material (105) between the heat sink and the electronic component, wherein the heat sink includes a distal-side abutment portion and proximal-side abutment (see left and right projections 104 and end portions adjacent 101) in abutment with the board. Okada et al fail to disclose a motor.
Sato is related to the art of electronic control boards within vehicles, and teaches employing an electronic control apparatus with a board (41, and 42) and attached heat sink (45) to control a motor (20). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a vehicle electronic control apparatus with a motor, as taught by Sato, as the circuit board for a motor controller acts as the central brain and power manager for the electric motor, managing the flow of electricity to ensure the motor starts, stops, spins at the correct speed, and/or changes direction safely and efficiently.
In Re claim 13, see left and right side 104 of Okada et al., which not fixed to the board (figs. 1 and 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS W IRVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3095. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/THOMAS W IRVIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights