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 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites, “the exhaust fan is direct communication with the outside of the housing” which is incorrect. It appears it should be changed to read, “the exhaust fan is in direct communication with the outside of the housing”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shirota (JP 2019107291).
With respect to claim 1, Shirota teaches (In Figs 3-8) an electronic endoscope processor (1) comprising: a housing (2); a partition plate (24) that partitions an internal space of the housing into a first space (A) below and a second space (B) above (See Fig 5), the partition plate having a first aperture (Not called out but the notch in 24 as shown in Figs 3, 7) that is an aperture allowing the first space and the second space to communicate with each other (See Fig 5); a first intake hole (7) through which outside air is acquired into the first space and a second intake hole (6) through which outside air is acquired into the second space are formed in the housing (See Fig 6); and an exhaust fan (31) that is attached to the housing at and in communication with the first space (See Figs 3, 5), wherein all of the outside air acquired into the first intake hole (7) and the second intake hole (6) is exhausted by the exhaust fan to an outside of the housing (See Figs 6-7, “Thus, the cooling fan 31 exhausts the heat in both the lower space A and the upper space B alone (one unit).”).
With respect to claim 4, Shirota further teaches that the second intake hole (6) is larger than the first intake hole (7, see Fig 8, the collective area of intake holes of 6 are larger than the collective area of intake holes of 7).
With respect to claim 8, Shirota further teaches that the exhaust fan (31) is in direct communication with the outside of the housing (See Fig 7).
With respect to claim 10, Shirota further teaches that the housing is free of exhaust fans at the second space (See Fig A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirota in view of Dalheimer (US 6,618,248).
With respect to claim 6, Shirota teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest the limitations of claim 6.
Dalheimer, however, teaches a peripheral edge of a first aperture (31) has a turbulence generating structure (5) that generates turbulence in an air flow passing through the first aperture.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dalheimer with that of Shirota such that, in Shirota a peripheral edge of a first aperture has a turbulence generating structure that generates turbulence in an air flow passing through the first aperture, as taught by Dalheimer, since doing so would increase heat transfer within the housing of Shirota.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirota in view of McQueen (US 2022/0389731).
With respect to claim 5, Shirota teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest a size of the first intake hole is set in such a manner than an air flow is fastest in the first space and the second space.
McQueen, however, teaches a size of an intake hole (132) is set in such a manner than a fluid flow is fastest in a space (¶ 0027, “The adjustable openings 132 may be allow for various flow rate configurations as desired, such as an unobstructed configuration (FIG. 4) allowing for a maximum flow rate through the housing 126 and a partially obstructed configuration (FIG. 5) in which the size of the openings is less than FIG. 4, and thereby the flow rate is decreased.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of McQueen with that of Shirota such that, in Shirota a size of the first intake hole is set in such a manner than an air flow is fastest in the first space and the second space, as taught by McQueen, since doing so would allow for maximum heat transfer to the air.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirota in view of Kitahara (US 7,920,381).
With respect to claim 9, Shirota teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest the limitations of claim 9.
Kitahara, however, teaches an exhaust system which includes a pair of exhaust fans (81, 82).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kitahara with that of Shirota such that the exhaust fan of Shirota includes a pair of exhaust fans, as taught by Kitahara, since doing so would provide redundancy to the exhaust system of Shirota so that, in the event one fan fails, the other would be able to remove heated air from the housing.
Further it is noted that duplication of parts, such as taking a single fan and duplicating it so that an exhaust system has two fans, has been held to be obvious1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 7 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claims 2-3, 7, the allowability resides in the overall structure of the device as recited in dependent claim 2 and at least in part because claim 2 recites, “one or a plurality of heat generating components that are arranged in the first space and generate heat during operation; and an air flow adjusting plate that is arranged between the first aperture and each of the heat generating components in the first space and adjusts an air flow entering the first space through the first aperture to be directed to each of the heat generating components”.
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of claim 2 are believed to render said claim 2 and all claims dependent therefrom patentable over the art of record.
While Shirota teaches many of the limitations of claim 1 as per the above rejection thereto, Shirota fails to specifically teach or suggest the above-mentioned limitations of claim 1. Further, the Examiner does not believe that Shirota lends itself to being modified to meet the limitations of claim 2.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 5-7, filed 9/17/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the previous rejection of claim 1 in view of Yasuyuki has been withdrawn. However, a new grounds 102(a)(1) rejection to claim 1 in view of Shirota is provided above where Shirota is believed to teach all the limitations of amended claim 1.
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 ZACHARY M PAPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am - 6pm EST.
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, JAYPRAKASH Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/ZACHARY PAPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
1 In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
Prosecution Insights