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 .
Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.05.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 11/12/2024, 9/17/2025, 11/21/2025 have been fully considered and are attached hereto.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6 recites, “wherein the at least one of the circuit boards” which appears to be incorrect. It appears it should be changed to read, “wherein at least one of the plurality of circuit boards”.
Claim 1, line 9 recites, “wherein the respective circuit board is pivotable” which appears to be incorrect. It appears it should be changed to read, “wherein a respective circuit board of the plurality of circuit boards is pivotable”.
Claim 1, line 11 recites, “on the circuit board” which appears to be incorrect. It appears it should be changed to read, “on the respective circuit board”.
Claim 1, line 13 recites, “on the circuit board” which appears to be incorrect. It appears it should be changed to read, “on the respective circuit board”.
Claim 1, line 18 recites, “introducing the circuit board” which appears to be incorrect. It appears it should be changed to read, “introducing the respective circuit board”.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 15 all have additional limitations to the circuit board(s) are similarly deficient and must be resolved by the Applicant.
Claim 10 recites, “a cooling device” which appears to be incorrect in view of claim 1 which already recites, “at least one cooling device”.
Claim 10 recites, “the cooling device” which appears to be incorrect.
Claim 10 recites, “the housing” which appears to be incorrect in view of claim 1 which already recites, “at least one housing”.
Claim 14 recites, “a plurality of housings to each other” which is incorrect. It appears it should be changed to read, “a plurality of housings fixed to each other”.
Claim 15 recites, “at least two circuit boards arranged above each other” which is unclear. How can both boards be arranged above each other? Perhaps Applicant intended to recite, “at least two of the respective circuit boards, one arranged above the other”?
Claim 15 recites, “two cooling devices arranged above each other” which is unclear. How can both cooling devices be arranged above each other? Perhaps Applicant intended to recite, “the at least one cooling device comprises two cooling device, one arranged above the other”?
Claim 15 recites, “two cooling devices” which appears to be incorrect. It appears it should be changed to read, “the at least one cooling device comprises two cooling devices”.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 12, 15 recite, “the housing” which appears to be incorrect in view of claim 1 which recites, “at least one housing”.
Claims 13-14 refer to a plurality of housings which appears to be incorrect in view of claim 1 which recites, “at least one housing”.
The Examiner respectfully requests that the Applicant review all claims for any other similar issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-15 are 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 11 recites limitations exclusive to the embodiment shown in Figs 8-9 while claim 1, from which claim 11 depends, recites limitations which are exclusive to the embodiment shown in Figs 1-7. Accordingly, the scope of claim 11 cannot be resolved in view of the specification.
Claim 12 recites limitations exclusive to the embodiment shown in Figs 8-9 while claim 1, from which claim 12 depends, recites limitations which are exclusive to the embodiment shown in Figs 1-7. Accordingly, the scope of claim 12 cannot be resolved in view of the specification.
Claim 13 recites limitations exclusive to the embodiment shown in Figs 8-9 while claim 1, from which claim 13 depends, recites limitations which are exclusive to the embodiment shown in Figs 1-7. Accordingly, the scope of claim 13 cannot be resolved in view of the specification.
Claim 14 recites limitations exclusive to the embodiment shown in Figs 8-9 while claim 1, from which claim 14 depends, recites limitations which are exclusive to the embodiment shown in Figs 1-7. Accordingly, the scope of claim 14 cannot be resolved in view of the specification.
Claim 15 recites limitations exclusive to the embodiment shown in Figs 8-9 while claim 1, from which claim 15 depends, recites limitations which are exclusive to the embodiment shown in Figs 1-7. Accordingly, the scope of claim 15 cannot be resolved in view of the specification.
Claim 15 uses the term, “sandwich-like” which is unclear. Adding the word “type” to an already defined limitation extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(E)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed, pending correction of all claim objections.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claims 1-10, the allowability resides in the overall structure of the device as recited in independent claim 1 and at least in part because claim 1 recites, “wherein the respective circuit board is pivotable around a pivot axis from a mounting position, in which the heat transfer element abuts both on the at least one cooling device and on the circuit board, into an intermediate position, wherein, in the intermediate position, an edge area of the circuit board far from the pivot axis is further spaced from the at least one cooling device than in the mounting position, wherein the housing comprises at least one guide element, and wherein the respective circuit board is displaceable along the at least one guide element into the intermediate position in introducing the circuit board into the housing”
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of claim 1 are believed to render said claim 1 and all claims dependent therefrom patentable over the art of record.
The closest art of record is believed to be that of:
Rossi et al. (US 2016/0291652) which teaches refrigerated electronic boards;
Fassel et al. (DE 19734110, cited by Applicant) which teaches an electrical device with heat sink mat for electronic component board; and
Mine (US 4,884,167 – cited by Applicant) which teaches a cooling system for three-dimensional IC package.
None of the above-cited art, however, teaches or suggest – either alone or in combination – the above-noted limitations of claim 1.
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
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
Prosecution Insights