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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/06/2024 or 06/27/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the axes orientation seems to be off. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 4 objected to because of the following informalities:
“used” in claim 2 should be “materially used”.
“another electronic component which is the electronic component” in Claim 4 should be “an other electronic component”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 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: Claim 8, for which claims 9 depends, teaches a limitation: “the capacitor is located on a vertical line passing through a fastening point of the inverter to the rotating electric machine in a lateral cross section of the vehicle” that is not disclosed adequately in the prior art areas searched for this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunihiko (JP2000269081) in view of Muto (WO2019181626).
Kunihiko teaches, in Fig. 1-9, an electronic unit to be mounted on a vehicle (intended use- see Muto below), the electronic unit comprising: a printed board (description of the related art) to which a plurality of electronic components (intended use- obvious to use- see Muto below) are attached; a capacitor (11) which is one of the electronic components and is longer in a vertical direction perpendicular to a surface of the printed board than in a lateral direction parallel to the surface of the printed board in a state of being attached to the printed board (see Fig. 1); and a pedestal (12) interposed between the capacitor and the printed board and configured to support the capacitor (implicit), wherein the capacitor and the pedestal are adhered by an adhesive (21) on an outer peripheral surface of the capacitor and an inner peripheral surface of the pedestal which are perpendicular to the surface of the printed board (see Fig. 9), and the adhesive protrudes in the lateral direction, or in both the vertical direction and the lateral direction (see Fig. 1-2, Fig. 9).
Muto discloses, in Fig. 1-2, Fig. 4-7, an electronic unit to be mounted on a vehicle (page 2 last paragraph) and plurality of electronic components (21, 22, see Fig. 2, 4-5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic unit as disclosed by Kunihiko with the plurality of electronic components and vehicle mounting as disclosed by Muto in order to act as a controller of a vehicle automatic transmission (page 2 last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 2. (Original) Kunihiko and Muto teaches the electronic unit according to claim 1, wherein at least a part of the printed board is coated with a coating agent (21), and the coating agent is used as the adhesive (Kunihiko, see [0013]).
Regarding Claim 3. (Original) Kunihiko and Muto teaches the electronic unit according to claim 1, wherein the capacitor is adhered to the pedestal at a part of the outer peripheral surface (see Kunihiko, Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 4. (Original) Kunihiko and Muto teaches the electronic unit according to claim 3, wherein another electronic component which is the electronic component different from the capacitor is attached adjacent to the capacitor on the printed board (Muto, Fig. 2 next to 21), but does not directly teach the capacitor is not adhered to the pedestal on a side surface of the outer peripheral surface facing the other electronic component and the capacitor is adhered to the pedestal on a side surface of the outer peripheral surface not facing the other electronic component.
Kunihiko and Muto discloses the claimed invention except for the capacitor is not adhered to the pedestal on a side surface of the outer peripheral surface facing the other electronic component and the capacitor is adhered to the pedestal on a side surface of the outer peripheral surface not facing the other electronic component. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reduce the amount of adhesive used to connect the capacitor to the pedestal as it is known in the art since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involved only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding Claim 5. (Original) Kunihiko and Muto teaches the electronic unit according to claim 1, wherein the pedestal supports the capacitor at a part in the vertical direction, and the adhesive fills a space formed between the capacitor and the pedestal, and is applied to a position higher than the pedestal in the vertical direction (Kunihiko, Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 6. (Original) Kunihiko and Muto teaches the electronic unit according to claim 1, wherein a contact area between the capacitor and the adhesive is larger than a contact area between the pedestal and the adhesive (Kunihiko, Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 7. (Original) Kunihiko and Muto teaches the electronic unit according to claim 1, wherein the pedestal includes a plurality of columnar portions configured to support the capacitor, and the capacitor is adhered to the pedestal on at least one of the columnar portions (Kunihiko, Fig. 1-2, Fig. 9).
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroki (JP2010177348) in view of Muto (WO2019181626).
Regarding Claim 1. Hiroki teaches, in Fig. 4-5, an electronic unit to be mounted on a vehicle (see Muto below- intended use), the electronic unit comprising: a printed board (20) to which a plurality of electronic components (intended use- see Muto below) are attached; a capacitor (12) which is one of the electronic components and is longer in a vertical direction perpendicular to a surface of the printed board than in a lateral direction parallel to the surface of the printed board in a state of being attached to the printed board (see Fig. 4-5); and a pedestal (1,2) interposed between the capacitor and the printed board and configured to support the capacitor, wherein the capacitor and the pedestal are adhered by an adhesive (3) on an outer peripheral surface of the capacitor and an inner peripheral surface of the pedestal which are perpendicular to the surface of the printed board (see Fig. 4-5), and the adhesive protrudes in the lateral direction, or in both the vertical direction and the lateral direction (see Fig. 4(a), 4(b)).
Muto discloses, in Fig. 1-2, Fig. 4-7, an electronic unit to be mounted on a vehicle (page 2 last paragraph) and plurality of electronic components (21, 22, see Fig. 2, 4-5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic unit as disclosed by Kunihiko with the plurality of electronic components and vehicle mounting as disclosed by Muto in order to act as a controller of a vehicle automatic transmission (page 2 last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 2. (Original) Hiroki and Muto teaches the electronic unit according to claim 1, wherein at least a part of the printed board is coated with a coating agent, and the coating agent is used as the adhesive (Hiroki, page 2 paragraph 5-6).
Regarding Claim 3. (Original) Hiroki and Muto teaches the electronic unit according to claim 1, wherein the capacitor is adhered to the pedestal at a part of the outer peripheral surface (Hiroki, see Fig. 4-5).
Regarding Claim 4. (Original) Hiroki and Muto teaches the electronic unit according to claim 3, wherein another electronic component which is the electronic component different from the capacitor is attached adjacent to the capacitor on the printed board (Muto, Fig. 2 next to 21), but does not directly teach the capacitor is not adhered to the pedestal on a side surface of the outer peripheral surface facing the other electronic component and the capacitor is adhered to the pedestal on a side surface of the outer peripheral surface not facing the other electronic component.
Hiroki and Muto discloses the claimed invention except for the capacitor is not adhered to the pedestal on a side surface of the outer peripheral surface facing the other electronic component and the capacitor is adhered to the pedestal on a side surface of the outer peripheral surface not facing the other electronic component. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reduce the amount of adhesive used to connect the capacitor to the pedestal as it is known in the art since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involved only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding Claim 5. (Original) Hiroki and Muto teaches the electronic unit according to claim 1, wherein the pedestal supports the capacitor at a part in the vertical direction, and the adhesive fills a space formed between the capacitor and the pedestal, and is applied to a position higher than the pedestal in the vertical direction (Hiroki, see Fig. 4- change in size to create a stronger seal between pedestal and capacitor).
Regarding Claim 6. (Original) Hiroki and Muto teaches the electronic unit according to claim 1, wherein a contact area between the capacitor and the adhesive is larger than a contact area between the pedestal and the adhesive (Hiroki, see Fig. 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is presented in the Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMED AZAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0593. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:00am-5:00pm.
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, TIMOTHY DOLE can be reached at (571) 272-2229. 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.
/MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/Timothy J. Dole/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights