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
Acknowledgment is made of this application’s status as a continuation of application PCT/EP2022/063058 filed on 05/13/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/12/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive.
A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2006/0109629A1 hereinafter “Harris” in view of US2021/0296280A1 hereinafter “Patil”
Regarding claim 1, Harris discloses a control unit for controlling a component of a machine, the control unit comprising:
a first layer including a printed circuit board (PCB) (¶24L1-14: printed circuit boards (PCB) [102], [104]);
a second layer including a PCB (¶30L1-6: the power system [130] can be configured as PCBs);
a solid member including a heatsink (¶54L2: a thermal dissipation device [220A]) sandwiched in a space between the first layer and the second layer (as shown in Fig.12A for example), wherein
the second layer is arranged, in a direction of gravity, above the first layer (as shown in Fig.12A for example; power system [130] PCB is above the PCB [104]) and is connected to the first layer via member carrying power tracks (¶28L1-13: electrical connectors or power coupling device [140] connect the respective power system [130] to the PCB [104]), wherein
the solid member includes a plurality of holes (¶54L1-17: a thermal dissipation device [220A] having a plurality of opening; the opening can have a variety of confirmation and/or shapes and includes slots, holes, etc.) to allow hot air to stream through the solid member. (¶54L1-17: the openings enable an airflow to pass through the thermal dissipation device)
Although Harris discloses the power system PCB [130] is arranged above the PCB [104]
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to rearrange the circuit so that the first layer is a power board and the second layer is a logic board such that the logic board is arranged, in a direction of gravity, above the power board.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Harris does not explicitly disclose:
a flexible member carrying power tracks
Patil discloses a flex cable used to connect power source circuit to IC packages. (¶26L1-4: electric power from the battery connector flow through the flex cable to a pin into IC packages)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the electrical connector disclosed by Harris with the flex cable disclosed by Harris.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because using a flex cable can reduce a packaged system form factor by 10-20%. (¶20L1-11)
Regarding claim 2, Harris in view of Patil hereinafter “Harris/Patil” discloses in Harris the control unit according to claim 1, wherein
the plurality of holes at least partially extends into an area covered by an element that extends from the solid member towards the first layer. (as shown in Fig. 12A-12C for example)
Regarding claim 3, Harris/Patil discloses in Harris the control unit according to claim 1, wherein
the plurality of holes at least partially extends into an area that is separated from the heat sink by an element arranged on the first layer. (as shown in Fig. 12A-12C for example)
Regarding claim 4, Harris/Patil discloses in Harris the control unit according to claim 1, wherein
the plurality of holes at least partially extends into an area that is separated from the heat sink by an element formed by the solid member. (as shown in Fig. 12A-12C for example)
Regarding claim 5, Harris/Patil discloses in Harris the control unit according to claim 1, wherein
the plurality of holes extends through the solid member and connects the space between the first layer and the solid member with a space between the second layer and the solid member. (as shown in Fig. 12A-12C for example)
Regarding claim 6, Harris/Patil discloses in Harris the control unit according to claim 1, wherein
the plurality of holes is arranged in an area at least partially covered by the flexible member. (as shown in Fig. 12A-12C for example)
Regarding claim 7, Harris/Patil discloses in Harris the control unit according to claim 1, wherein
the plurality of holes is arranged between the heat sink and the flexible member. (as shown in Fig. 12A-12C for example)
Regarding claim 8, Harris/Patil discloses in Harris the control unit according to claim 1, wherein
the solid member includes a plurality of receptors for receiving at least one element (¶35L1-12: heat-generating component [110]), and wherein at least one hole of the plurality of holes extends into an area between particular receptors of the plurality of receptors. (as shown in Fig. 12A-12C for example; )
Regarding claims 2-8, even if Harris does not explicitly disclose the claimed arrangement, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify holes of the thermal dissipation device disclosed by Harris to satisfy the requirement recited by the claim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because Harris recognizes the thermal dissipation device can be modified into different size/shape (¶54L1-6) and there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 10, Harris/Patil discloses in Harris the machine comprising
a control unit according to claim 1. (as rejected above)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris/Patel in view of US2008/0130234A1 hereinafter “Maehara”
Regarding claim 9, Harris/Patil the control unit according to claim 1,
Harris/Patil does not explicitly disclose:
the second layer includes a plurality of holes to allow hot air streaming through the plurality of holes of the solid member to stream through the second layer in an environment outside the control unit.
Maehara discloses a circuit board wherein the circuit board has via hole that has high heat transfer characters (¶38)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to add holes of PCB layer disclosed by Harris.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this can further improve thermal dissipation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND R CHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-0576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at 571-242-8048. 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.
/Raymond R Chai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights