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
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 1-3, 8, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michael (US 6,778,390).Re claim 1: Michael discloses A housing (“enclosure” in abstract) for at least one electronic circuit (101 + 119 in fig. 5), the housing comprising a housing portion (311 in fig. 5) with an inner surface (bottom surface of 311 in fig. 5), the housing comprising: a heat spreader component (317 in fig. 4), which is connected to the inner surface of the housing portion (fig. 4), wherein the heat spreader component comprises: a contact region (contact region of 317 in fig. 4) connected to an electronic component (119 in fig. 4) of the at least one electronic circuit (fig. 5), a material, whose thermal conductivity is greater than a thermal conductivity of the housing portion (thermal conductivity of the material of 317 is greater than that of 311 in fig. 5), and a star-like geometric shape (the 405’s form a star-like shape in fig. 5) comprising an inner contact region (403 in fig. 5) for connecting the electronic component (fig. 5) and a plurality of arms (405’s in fig. 5) extending from the inner contact region (fig. 5) to allow for a heat transfer at an increased heat transfer rate (the 405’s allow for heat transfer at an increased heat transfer rate in fig. 5).Re claim 14: Michael discloses A method for manufacturing an electronic device (everything in fig. 5), comprising: providing at least one electronic circuit (101 + 119 in fig. 5) for the electronic device and providing a housing (“enclosure” in abstract) with a housing portion (311 in fig. 5), which has an inner surface (bottom surface of 311 in fig. 5), providing a heat spreader component (heat sink bottom 317 with fins 405 protruding therefrom, figs. 4–5) and connecting the heat spreader component to the inner surface of the housing portion (fig. 4; fins 405 are bounded by top 311, col. 7, ll. 55–58), wherein the heat spreader component comprises a material, whose thermal conductivity is greater than a thermal conductivity of the housing portion (thermal conductivity of the material of 317 is greater than that of 311 in fig. 5); and connecting a contact region (contact region of 317 in fig. 4) of the heat spreader component to an electronic component (119 in fig. 4) of the at least one electronic circuit (fig. 5), wherein the heat spreader component comprises a star-like geometric shape (fins 405 extend outward about the periphery of fan receiving area 403 to form a star-like shape in fig. 5) comprising the contact region (the portion of heat sink bottom 317 at fan receiving area 403, positioned between blower 303 and GPU 119, fig. 5; col. 7, l. 67 – col. 8, l. 3) and a plurality of arms (405’s in fig. 5) extending from the contact region (fig. 5) to allow for a heat transfer at an increased heat transfer rate (the 405’s allow for heat transfer at an increased heat transfer rate in fig. 5).Re claim 2: Michael discloses wherein the heat spreader component is formed as an essentially two-dimensional layer (317 in fig. 4 is a 2 dimensional layer).Re claim 3: Michael discloses wherein the heat spreader component comprises a heat transfer region surrounding the contact region at least in part (317 has regions surrounding the contact region in fig. 4).Re claim 8: Michael discloses An electronic device (everything in fig. 5) comprising at least one electronic circuit (101 + 119 in fig. 5), wherein the electronic circuit comprises an electronic component (119 in fig. 5), and a housing (“enclosure” in abstract) for the at least one electronic circuit (fig. 5), wherein the housing is configured according to claim 1, wherein the heat spreader component is connected to the electronic component at the contact region (317 is connected to 119 at the contact region of 317 in fig. 4).
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael (US 6,778,390).Re claim 4: Michael does not explicitly disclose wherein the heat spreader component comprises a grid structure made of the material. Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing of Michael wherein the heat spreader component comprises a grid structure made of the material in order to increase the surface area of the heat spreader component, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).Re claim 5: Michael does not explicitly disclose wherein the thermal conductivity of the material is equal to or greater than 270 W/(m*K), and wherein the thermal conductivity of the housing portion is equal to or smaller than 250 W/(m*K). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing of Michael wherein the thermal conductivity of the material is equal to or greater than 270 W/(m*K), and wherein the thermal conductivity of the housing portion is equal to or smaller than 250 W/(m*K) in order to increase the thermal conductivity of the material and the housing portion since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).Re claim 6: Michael does not explicitly disclose wherein the material comprises copper, gold or silver; and wherein the housing portion comprises aluminum, magnesium, steel, or a plastic material. Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing of Michael wherein the material comprises copper, gold or silver; and wherein the housing portion comprises aluminum, magnesium, steel, or a plastic material in order to increase the thermal conductivity of the material and the housing portion, 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 engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 7, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael (US 6,778,390) in view of Gektin (US 2004/0042178).Re claim 7: Michael does not explicitly disclose wherein the housing comprises an adhesive material arranged between the heat spreader component and the inner surface of the housing portion, wherein the adhesive material connects the heat spreader component to the inner surface of the housing portion; and wherein the housing comprises at least one mechanical fastener, which connects the heat spreader component to the inner surface of the housing portion. Gektin discloses wherein the housing comprises an adhesive material arranged between the heat spreader component and the inner surface of the housing portion (para. 0024), wherein the adhesive material connects the heat spreader component to the inner surface of the housing portion (para. 0024); and wherein the housing comprises at least one mechanical fastener (para. 0024), which connects the heat spreader component to the inner surface of the housing portion (para. 0024). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing of Michael wherein the housing comprises an adhesive material arranged between the heat spreader component and the inner surface of the housing portion, wherein the adhesive material connects the heat spreader component to the inner surface of the housing portion; and wherein the housing comprises at least one mechanical fastener, which connects the heat spreader component to the inner surface of the housing portion as taught by Gektin, in order to securely hold the heat spreader and the housing portion together.Re claim 15: Michael does not explicitly disclose further comprising: connecting the heat spreader component to the inner surface of the housing portion by means of an adhesive material and by means of at least one mechanical fastener; and connecting the contact region to the electronic component by means of a thermal paste. Gektin discloses further comprising: connecting the heat spreader component to the inner surface of the housing portion by means of an adhesive material and by means of at least one mechanical fastener (para. 0024); and connecting the contact region to the electronic component by means of a thermal paste (para. 0025). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Michael connecting the heat spreader component to the inner surface of the housing portion by means of an adhesive material and by means of at least one mechanical fastener; and connecting the contact region to the electronic component by means of a thermal paste as taught by Gektin, in order to securely hold the heat spreader and the housing portion together.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael (US 6,778,390) in view of Kirk (US 2017/0219303).Re claim 9: Michael does not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic device comprises a thermal paste connecting the heat spreader component to the electronic component at the contact region. Kirk discloses wherein the electronic device (10 in fig. 1) comprises a thermal paste (24 in fig. 1) connecting the heat spreader component (22 in fig. 1) to the electronic component (15 in fig. 1) at the contact region (region of 22 that’s in contact with 25 in fig. 1). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing of Michael wherein the electronic device comprises a thermal paste connecting the heat spreader component to the electronic component at the contact region as taught by Kirk, in order to increase the amount of heat that can be removed from the electronic component.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael (US 6,778,390) in view of Eid (US 2021/0041182).Re claim 10: Michael does not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic device is configured for use in or on a motor vehicle. Eid discloses wherein the electronic device is configured for use in or on a motor vehicle (para. 0109). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing of Michael wherein the electronic device is configured for use in or on a motor vehicle as taught by Eid, in order to incorporate a device that provides computational power to the motor vehicle while also preventing it from overheating.Re claim 11: Michael does not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic device is an electronic control unit of the motor vehicle. Eid discloses wherein the electronic device is an electronic control unit of the motor vehicle (para. 0109).Re claim 12: Michael does not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic device is an automotive camera. Eid discloses wherein the electronic device is an automotive camera (para. 0109).Re claim 13: Michael does not explicitly disclose a motor vehicle comprising an electronic device according to claim 8. Eid discloses a motor vehicle comprising an electronic device according to claim 8 (vehicle that comprises 1800 in para. 0109). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing of Michael wherein a motor vehicle comprising an electronic device according to claim 8 as taught by Eid, in order to incorporate a device that provides computational power to the motor vehicle while also preventing it from overheating.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Heat spreader component. Applicant argues that fins 405 of Michael are flow ducts and are not disclosed as spreading heat (Remarks, p. 7). As set forth in the rejection, the heat spreader component is heat sink bottom 317 (fig. 4), and fins 405 are its arms. Michael shows fins 405 protruding from bottom 317 (col. 9, ll. 36–40), so the fins are part of the same heat sink structure. Michael describes bottom 317 as preferably made of a high thermal conductivity material, such as a metal, to provide cooling to GPU 119 (col. 8, ll. 9–13); describes fins 405 as capable of being modified to improve their ability to act as a heat sink for GPU 119 (col. 9, ll. 24–28); and expressly claims them as “heat sink fins” disposed on a heat sink bottom or base surface adapted for attachment to the electronic component (Michael, claims 1, 8, 13, and 18). That the fins also direct airflow does not remove their heat-conducting function. Further, the recitation “to allow for a heat transfer at an increased heat transfer rate” is a functional recitation met by structure capable of performing it. See MPEP § 2114.
Star-like geometric shape. Applicant argues that fins 405 are curved fan vanes and do not form a star-like shape (Remarks, p. 8). Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP § 2111. Applicant’s specification describes the star-like shape only as having an inner contact region and a plurality of arms extending from it (published specification, ¶ [0062], as cited by applicant). The claim does not require straight arms, a planar shape, or arms distributed around the full circumference. Michael’s fins 405 are a plurality of elongated members extending outward from about the periphery of the central fan receiving area 403 (fig. 5; Michael, claim 18), which is a star-like arrangement of arms extending from an inner region.
Inner contact region. Applicant argues that fan receiving area 403 is a hole for fan 303 and cannot connect an electronic component (Remarks, p. 8). The rejection identifies the inner contact region as fan receiving area 403 (fig. 5). Area 403 is not an opening. The opening in Michael is aperture 309 in top 311 (fig. 5; col. 7, ll. 62–64). Area 403 is the area of housing 401 for mounting blower 303 (col. 7, ll. 55–56), and Michael claims the fan as mounted on a portion of the heat sink bottom or base surface (Michael, claims 1, 8, 13, and 18). Michael further teaches that a heat sink is positioned between blower 303 and GPU 119, preferably as bottom 317 (col. 7, l. 67 – col. 8, l. 3). Area 403 is thus the region of bottom 317 that lies between the blower and GPU 119 and connects to GPU 119, as the claim requires.
Claim 14. Applicant’s arguments regarding amended claim 14 rely on the same reasons (Remarks, p. 8) and are not persuasive for the reasons given above. The rejection of claim 14 has been updated to address the amended limitations.
Dependent claims. Applicant’s arguments for claims 2–13 and 15 rely on the arguments presented for claims 1 and 14 and are not persuasive for the reasons given above. In response to applicant’s argument that the combinations are based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Each rejection above relies on the teachings of the applied references and articulates a reason for the combination; applicant has not identified any knowledge relied upon that was gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure.
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 Examiner Zhengfu J. Feng, whose telephone number is 571-272-2949. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 10AM -6PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, JAYPRAKASH GANDHI, can be reached at 571-272-3740. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center.
/ZHENGFU J FENG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841 September 27, 2026
