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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites , “including;” in line 2. “;” should be replaced by “:”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura et al. (JP 2021121157; “Fujimura” hereinafter) in view of Shimuzi et al. (US 20100134975; “Shimuzi” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Fujimura discloses an electrical junction box (10) comprising: a housing (lower case 24, upper case 26) that accommodates a circuit component (relay 16) and a busbar (112, 114; “ heat dissipation busbars 112, 114”, par. [0041]) connected to the circuit component (par. [0047], [0049]); a through hole (164) formed in one wall of the housing; and a heat conductive member (162) that closes the through hole (164), wherein the busbar is in contact with an inner surface of the heat conductive member (par. [0073]; fig. 13).
Fujimura does not explicitly disclose the heat conductive member has higher thermal conductivity than the housing
Shimuzi teaches an electronic junction box (10) comprising a housing (25, 11), a heat conductive member (heat radiation member 70); the heat conductive member has higher thermal conductivity than the housing (“The heat conductivity of the heat radiation member 70 made of metal is higher than that of the cover 25 made of synthetic resin”, par. [0092]; “the case 11 forms a shape of shallow container made of synthetic resin”, par. [0049]).
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 Fujimura to have the heat conductive member having a higher thermal conductivity than that of the housing as taught by Shimuzi because such modification helps to dissipate heat generated from the heat generating component.
Regarding claim 2, Fujimura in view of Shimuzi discloses wherein the heat conductive member has an insulating property (“the heat conductive material can be any insulating material with a higher thermal conductivity”, par. [0013], Fujimura).
Regarding claim 3, Fujimura in view of Shimuzi discloses the junction box as claimed in claim 2.
Fujimura in view of Shimuzi does not explicitly disclose wherein the heat conductive member is thicker than the one wall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify the thickness of the heat conductive member such that the heat conductive member is thicker than the one wall, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the thickness/size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igura et al. (WO 2021230125; “Igura” hereinafter) in view of Shimuzi et al. (US 20100134975; “Shimuzi” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Igura discloses an electrical junction box (13) comprising: a housing (30) that accommodates a circuit component (14) (par. [0028], [0031]) (fig. 20) and a busbar (20) connected to the circuit component (14 (fig. 3; par. [0028]); a through hole (opening 36) formed in one wall (33) of the housing; and a heat conductive member (heat transfer element 49) that closes the through hole (fig. 3), wherein the busbar (20) is in contact with an inner surface of the heat conductive member (fig. 3, par. [0062]).
Igura does not explicitly disclose the heat conductive member has higher thermal conductivity than the housing
Shimuzi teaches an electronic junction box (10) comprising a housing (25, 11), a heat conductive member (heat radiation member 70); the heat conductive member has higher thermal conductivity than the housing (“The heat conductivity of the heat radiation member 70 made of metal is higher than that of the cover 25 made of synthetic resin”, par. [0092]; “the case 11 forms a shape of shallow container made of synthetic resin”, par. [0049]).
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 Igura to have the heat conductive member having a higher thermal conductivity than that of the housing as taught by Shimuzi because such modification helps to dissipate heat generated from the heat generating component.
Regarding claim 2, Igura in view of Shizumi discloses wherein the heat conductive member has an insulating property (“the heat transfer member 49 is made of an insulating material”, par. [0069], Igura).
Regarding claim 3, Igura in view of Shizumi discloses wherein the heat conductive member is thicker than the one wall (heat transfer member 49 is thicker than the wall 33, fig. 3; Igura).
Regarding claim 6, Igura in view of Shizumi discloses wherein the heat conductive member has an insulating property (“the heat transfer member 49 is made of an insulating material”, par. [0069]; Igura).
Claim(s) 4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igura in view of Shimuzi as applied to claims 1, 2 and 3 respectively, and in further view of Hoyler (US 20210144887; “Hoyler” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, Igura in view of Shizumi discloses the junction box as claimed in claim 1.
Igura in view of Shizumi does not explicitly disclose wherein an outer surface of the heat conductive member is flush with an outer surface of the one wall.
Hoyler teaches an electronic device comprising a housing (14) provided with an opening (“opening of the housing 14 “, par. [0031], fig. 2) in a wall of the housing (14); a heat conductive member (26) is flush with an outer surface of the wall (“An edge surface 27 of the opening of the housing 14 is flush with the heat-conducting plate 26”, par. [0031]).
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 Igura in view of Shimuzi to have an outer surface of the heat conductive member flush with an outer surface of the one wall as suggested by Hoyler because such modification helps to utilize the space in the opening which allows more space for accommodating other components in the housing. Further, 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 7, Igura in view of Shizumi discloses the junction box as claimed in claim 2.
Igura in view of Shizumi does not explicitly disclose wherein an outer surface of the heat conductive member is flush with an outer surface of the one wall.
Hoyler teaches an electronic device comprising a housing (14) provided with an opening (“opening of the housing 14 “, par. [0031], fig. 2) in a wall of the housing (14); a heat conductive member (26) is flush with an outer surface of the wall (“An edge surface 27 of the opening of the housing 14 is flush with the heat-conducting plate 26”, par. [0031]).
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 Igura in view of Shimuzi to have an outer surface of the heat conductive member flush with an outer surface of the one wall as suggested by Hoyler because such modification helps to utilize the space in the opening which allows more space for accommodating other components in the housing. Further, 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 8, Igura in view of Shizumi discloses the junction box as claimed in claim 3.
Igura in view of Shizumi does not explicitly disclose wherein an outer surface of the heat conductive member is flush with an outer surface of the one wall.
Hoyler teaches an electronic device comprising a housing (14) provided with an opening (“opening of the housing 14 “, par. [0031], fig. 2) in a wall of the housing (14); a heat conductive member (26) is flush with an outer surface of the wall (“An edge surface 27 of the opening of the housing 14 is flush with the heat-conducting plate 26”, par. [0031]).
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 Igura in view of Shimuzi to have an outer surface of the heat conductive member flush with an outer surface of the one wall as suggested by Hoyler because such modification helps to utilize the space in the opening which allows more space for accommodating other components in the housing. Further, 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9-11 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claim 1 and, a combination of limitations that an insulating sheet covering the heat conductive member and an outer surface of the one wall up to a periphery of the heat conductive member. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claims 1, 2 and, a combination of limitations that an insulating sheet covering the heat conductive member and an outer surface of the one wall up to a periphery of the heat conductive member. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claims 1, 3, and a combination of limitations that an insulating sheet covering the heat conductive member and an outer surface of the one wall up to a periphery of the heat conductive member. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claims 1, 4, and a combination of limitations that an insulating sheet covering the heat conductive member and an outer surface of the one wall up to a periphery of the heat conductive member. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are listed in the form 892.
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
Prosecution Insights