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 § 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, 9 and 26 and 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, lines 10-13 cite “a thermal barrier provided within the cavity, the thermal barrier insulating the outer wall from heat generated by the one or more electronic components and causes the first surface of the outer wall to be at a lower temperature than the first surface of the inner wall”. Its not understood how this is possible, since the limitation it's trying to limit a structure with a causal result that may not be guaranteed by the structure depending on external influences (the external environment being at a lower temperature than the temperature of the internal electronic component).
Claim 9 recites a similar limitation in lines 10-11, and claim 26 recites a similar limitation.
For the purpose of examination, the office will interpret this limitation as “a thermal barrier provided within the cavity, the thermal barrier insulating the outer wall from heat generated by the one or more electronic components and insulate or limit heat from the wall with the highest thermal energy affecting the other wall”.
Claims 3-7, 21-22 are rejected by virtue of dependency to claim 1.
Claims 11-14, 23-24 are rejected by virtue of dependency to claim 9.
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, 5-7, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Engelder (US 4440219; “Engelder” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Engelder discloses: an electronic device, comprising:
a housing (20 and 21, figs. 2A-2B, 4) at least partially surrounding one or more electronic components (26, figs. 2A-2B, col. 3, lines 13-14), the housing comprising:
an outer wall (21) having a first surface (annotated as ‘FS21’ in annotated fig. 2B below) and a second surface (annotated as ‘SS21’ in annotated fig. 2B below) opposite the first surface; and
an inner wall (20) opposite the outer wall (fig. 4), the inner wall having a first surface (annotated as ‘FS20’ in annotated fig. 2B below) and a second surface opposite the first surface (annotated as ‘SS20’ in annotated fig. 2B below), wherein the first surface of the inner wall faces the second surface of the outer wall (see annotated fig. 2B below, and fig. 4) and wherein the second surface of the outer wall and the first surface of the inner wall define a cavity (44, fig. 2A); and
a thermal barrier provided within the cavity (vacuum space, col. 4, lines 14-20), the thermal barrier insulating the outer wall from heat generated by the one or more electronic components (26, col. 4, lines 14-20), and causes the first surface of the outer wall to be at a lower temperature than the first surface of the inner wall (Note: the limitation is considered functional language and given limited patentable weight to the extent it imparts a further structural limitation to the device as claimed; in the instant case it appears only to it to be thermal insulating as the claimed device cannot cause the temperature difference upon which the insulation will occur; see also 112(b) above; further “apparatus may also be designed to enable conduction of heat from the interior to the exterior of the insulated jacket, and to the surrounding earth formation, during periods when the liquid, air and formation at the outside of the jacket are a lower temperature than the instrument”, col. 2, lines 1-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
516
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Engelder teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein the thermal barrier is a vacuum chamber (vacuum space, col. 4, lines 14-20).
Regarding claim 5, Engelder teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein the inner wall has a first thickness and the outer wall has a second thickness that is greater than the first thickness (col. 4, lines 9-14).
Regarding claim 6, Engelder teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein the outer wall surrounds the inner wall (fig. 4 discloses this limitation).
Regarding claim 7, Engelder teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein the thermal barrier has a uniform thickness (as disclosed upon examination of figures 2A-2B, 4).
Regarding claim 22, Engelder teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein the inner wall is a single unitary piece (“The outer casing 21 of dewar 19 is preferably internally and externally cylindrical, as is inner wall 20, with both of these walls being concentric about the main longitudinal axis 32 of the survey device”, col. 4, lines 5-8).
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, 9, 11-12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelder (US 4440219; “Engelder” hereinafter), in view of de Kanter (US 4407136; “Kanter” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, Engelder teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein the inner wall at least partially surrounds the one or more electronic components (26, figs. 2A-2B, 4, col. 6, lines 4-5) and a circuitry (i.e. electronic section 27, fig. 2B, col. 3, lines 3-40) on which the one or more electronic components are placed (“All of the electronic components and circuitry 86 of section 27.”, Col. 6, lines 4-5).
Engelder does not explicitly teach:
one or more electronic components placed on a PCB.
However, Kanter teaches:
a printed circuit board (PCB) (30, fig. 1);
at least one hardware component mounted on the PCB (col. 3, lines 34-42);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kanter into Engelder such that the electronic device comprises a printed circuit board (PCB), wherein at least one hardware component is placed on the PCB, since claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (electronic components mounted on PCBs) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Kantor. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 9, Engelder teaches, an electronic device, comprising:
a double-walled housing (20 and 21, figs. 2A-2B, 4), comprising:
an inner wall (20) at least partially surrounding a circuitry (26, fig. 2A) and at least one hardware component (31 and 33, fig. 2B);
an outer wall (21) surrounding the inner wall (fig. 4)and forming an outside surface of the housing (figs. 2A-2B, 4) the outer wall and inner wall defining a cavity (44) between the outer wall and the inner wall (fig. 2A); and
a thermal barrier provided within the cavity (vacuum space, col. 4, lines 14-20), the thermal barrier causing the outer wall to be at a lower temperature than the inner wall (Note: the limitation is considered functional language and given limited patentable weight to the extent it imparts a further structural limitation to the device as claimed; in the instant case it appears only to it to be thermal insulating as the claimed device cannot cause the temperature difference upon which the insulation will occur; see also 112(b) above; “apparatus may also be designed to enable conduction of heat from the interior to the exterior of the insulated jacket, and to the surrounding earth formation, during periods when the liquid, air and formation at the outside of the jacket are a lower temperature than the instrument”, col. 2, lines 1-6).
Engelder does not explicitly teach:
a printed circuit board (PCB);
at least one hardware component mounted on the PCB;
However, Kanter teaches:
a printed circuit board (PCB) (30, fig. 1);
at least one hardware component mounted on the PCB (col. 3, lines 34-42);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kanter into Engelder such that the electronic device comprises a printed circuit board (PCB), wherein at least one hardware component is mounted on the PCB, since claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (electronic components mounted on PCBs) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Kantor. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 11, Engelder in view of Kanter teaches the limitations of claim 9,and Engelder further teaches:
wherein the thermal barrier is vacuum sealed (col. 4, lines 14-44).
Regarding claim 12, Engelder in view of Kanter teaches the limitations of claim 9, and Engelder further teaches:
wherein the inner wall has a first thickness and the outer wall has a second thickness that is greater than the first thickness (col. 4, lines 9-14).
Regarding claim 14, Engelder in view of Kanter teaches the limitations of claim 9, and Engelder further teaches:
wherein the thermal barrier has a uniform thickness (as disclosed upon examination of figures 2A-2B, 4).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Engelder (US 4440219; “Engelder” hereinafter), in view of Kanter, and further in view of Peters et al (US 5155356; “Peters” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 13, Engelder in view of Kanter teaches the limitations of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the electronic device is a removable data storage device and wherein the electronic device further comprises a connecter extending from a distal end of the double-walled housing.
However, Peters discloses:
wherein an electronic device (20, fig. 3) is a removable data storage device (“Each sensor may be controlled by a microprocessor mounted on a printed circuit board 30 within the probe. The microprocessor operates under stored program instructions and includes associated internal memory or external memory” col. 5, lines 54-60, and data connector 42, fig. 3) and wherein the electronic device further comprises a connecter (42, fig. 3) extending from a distal end (end of housing 36, fig. 3) of a housing (36, fig. 3).
Claims 16-18, 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelder (US 4440219; “Engelder” hereinafter), in view of de Kanter (US 4407136; “Kanter” hereinafter), and further in view of Hovik (US 8699227 “Hovik” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 16, Engelder teaches:
an electronic device, comprising:
a double-walled housing (20 and 21, figs. 2A-2B, 4) at least partially surrounding a circuitry (26, fig. 2A), the double-walled housing, comprising:
a first wall (20);
a second wall (21) surrounding the first wall (Fig. 4), the second wall forming an outside surface of the double-walled housing (fig. 4 discloses this limitation), the first wall and the second wall defining a cavity (44, fig. 2A); and
an insulation means provided within the cavity (vacuum space, col. 4, lines 14-20), the insulation means acting as a thermal barrier against heat generated by at least one hardware component (26, figs. 2A-2B, col. 3. lines 13-15; col. 4, lines 14-20).
Engelder does not explicitly teach:
the second wall forming a user-contact surface of the double-walled housing,
at least one hardware component mounted on a printed circuit board (PCB).
However, Kantor teaches:
at least one hardware component mounted on a PCB (col. 3, lines 34-42);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kanter into Engelder such that the electronic device comprises a printed circuit board (PCB), wherein at least one hardware component is mounted on the PCB, since claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (electronic components mounted on PCBs) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Kantor. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Engelder in view of Kantor does not explicitly teach:
the second wall forming a user-contact surface of the double-walled housing
However, Hovik teaches:
a second wall (1, fig. 1) forms a user-contact surface of a double-walled housing (1 and 2, fig. 1, col. 6, lines 40-44).
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 outer wall of Engelder in view of Kantor with Hovil’s teaching, such that the second wall forming a user-contact surface of the double-walled housing, in order to carry out routine maintenance of said double-walled housing.
Regarding claim 18, Engelder in view of Kanter and Hovik teaches the limitations of claim 16, and Engelder further teaches:
wherein the insulation means is formed by vacuum sealing the cavity (col. 4, lines 14-44).
Regarding claim 19, Engelder in view of Kanter and Hovik teaches the limitations of claim 16, and Engelder further teaches:
wherein the insulation means has a uniform thickness (as disclosed upon examination of figures 2A-2B, 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the data storage means, power supply and connector of Peters into Engelder as modified by Kantor and Hovik, such that the electronic device is a removable data storage device and wherein the electronic device further comprises a connecter extending from a distal end of the double-walled housing, in order to allow connection of the electronic device to an external processor and power source (col. 6, lines 2-7).
Regarding claim 23, Engelder in view of Kanter teaches the limitations of claim 9, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the outer wall forms a user-contact surface of the electronic device.
However, Hovik teaches:
wherein an outer wall (1, fig. 1) forms a user-contact surface of an electronic device (100, fig. 1, col. 6, lines 40-44).
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 outer wall of Engelder with Hovil’s teaching, such that the outer wall forms a user-contact surface of the electronic device, in order to carry out routine maintenance of said electronic device.
Regarding claim 24, Engelder in view of Kanter teaches the limitations of claim 9, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the outer wall has a stair-step configuration in which a first portion of the outer wall has a first thickness and a second portion of the outer wall has a second thickness greater than the first thickness.
However, Hovik teaches:
PNG
media_image2.png
436
745
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an outer wall (1, fig. 1) has a stair-step configuration (see annotated fig. 1 below) in which a first portion of the outer wall has a first thickness (see annotated fig. 1 below) and a second portion of the outer wall has a second thickness (see annotated fig. 1 below) greater than the first thickness (see annotated fig. 1 below).
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 outer wall of Engelder in view of Kanter, with Hovik’s teaching such that the outer wall has a stair-step configuration in which a first portion of the outer wall has a first thickness and a second portion of the outer wall has a second thickness greater than the first thickness, as this configuration would provide a better surface area to connect Engelder’s outer wall with element 47 (fig. 2B, Engelder). The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Hovik. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 25, Engelder in view of Kanter and Hovik teaches the limitations of claim 16, and Engelder further teaches:
wherein the cavity extends at least partially along a length of the double-walled housing (fig. 2A teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 26, Engelder in view of Kanter and Hovik teaches the limitations of claim 16, and Engelder further teaches:
wherein the insulation means causes the first wall to be at a higher temperature than the second wall (“apparatus may also be designed to enable conduction of heat from the interior to the exterior of the insulated jacket, and to the surrounding earth formation, during periods when the liquid, air and formation at the outside of the jacket are a lower temperature than the instrument”, col. 2, lines 1-6).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelder (US 4440219; “Engelder” hereinafter), in view of Hovik (US 8699227 “Hovik” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 21, Engelder teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first surface of the outer wall forms a user-contact surface of the electronic device.
However, Hovik teaches:
a first surface (external surface of 1, fig. 1) of an outer wall (1, fig. 1) forms a user-contact surface of an electronic device (100, fig. 1, col. 6, lines 40-44).
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 outer wall of Engelder with Hovil’s teaching, such that the first surface of the outer wall forms a user-contact surface of the electronic device, in order to carry out routine maintenance of said electronic device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s argument:
“Thus, Engelder neither discloses nor suggests a thermal barrier that causes the outer wall to be at a lower temperature than the inner wall”.
Examiners response:
Temperature of the outer wall vs. the inner wall is a function of the heat of the external environment vs. heat of the electronic components relative to the thermal barrier. Heat transfer will occur from the highest temperature element to the lowest temperature element. And as such, this limitation is met in col. 2, lines 1-6 of Engelder (“apparatus may also be designed to enable conduction of heat from the interior to the exterior of the insulated jacket, and to the surrounding earth formation, during periods when the liquid, air and formation at the outside of the jacket are a lower temperature than the instrument”).
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 PETER KRIM whose telephone number is (703)756-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am -4:30pm.
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 L 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.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights