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 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 1-15 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.
Independent claims 1 and 9 recite limitation “in contact” and “contacts”, which render claims indefinite, since it’s not clear what kind of contact (i.e., physical, thermal, electrical, etc.) the claims are referring to.
Furthermore, in claims 1, 6, and 10-14, the limitation “thermal interface material” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Furthermore, in claim 8, the limitation “heat spreader layer” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Furthermore, claim 3 recites the limitations: “there is a plurality of electrical components connected to the printed circuit board of varying sizes”. It’s not clear where the limitations “various sizes” refer to the “electrical components” or to the “circuit board”. As best understood by the Office, the claim will be interpreted as reciting electrical components of various sizes.
Furthermore, there is an inconsistency present between claim 1 and claim 4. Claim 4 sets forth “a first heat spreader layer”, which appears to be the same heat spreader layer as the previously introduced “heat spreader layer” in the parent claim 1. As such, there are two different names present for the same component.
Furthermore, there is an inconsistency present between claim 1 and claim 6. First, claim 6 recites “thermal interface material” limitation (l. 2) which lacks proper antecedent basis. Second, claim 1 sets forth the “thermal interface material” which is “disposed between the heat spreader layer and the outer housing”, and then dependent claim 6 recites the “thermal interface material” that is “disposed between the printed circuit board and a cover member”.
Applicant must carefully review all claims for consistency in relation to all remaining recited components of the device structure. All alternative components must be properly positively set forth in the claims.
Since remaining dependent claims inherit the aforementioned problems of the independent claims 1 and 9, they have been also rejected along with said claims 1 and 9.
The Office requests Applicant’s cooperation with reviewing the claims and correcting all remaining informalities present in the claims, but not made of record above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 3-12, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being clearly anticipated by US 5, 323, 292 to Brzezinski.
Regarding claim 1, Brzezinski discloses (Fig. 2) an electronic control unit (64), comprising: an outer housing (66); a printed circuit board (76) ; at least one electrical component (78, 80, 82, 84, 86 and 88) connected to the printed circuit board, a heat spreader layer (92) disposed between the electrical component and the outer housing and including at least a portion in contact with the outer housing (Fig. 2); and thermal interface material (94) disposed between the heat spreader layer (92) and the outer housing (66).
Regarding claim 9, Brzezinski discloses (Figs. 2, 3) an electronic control unit (10, 64) comprising: an outer housing member (12, 66) and a cover member (14); a printed circuit board (26, 76); a plurality of electrical components (28-38, 106) connected to a top and bottom surface of the printed circuit board, wherein the electrical components are of varying sizes (col. 7, ll. 58-60); a first heat spreader layer (56, 92) disposed between the electrical components disposed on the top surface of the printed circuit board and the outer housing and including at least a portion in contact with the outer housing (Figs. 2, 3); and a second heat spreader layer (108) disposed between the electrical components (106) disposed on the bottom surface of the printed circuit board and the cover member (14), wherein a portion of the second heat spreader layer (108) contacts the cover member (14), (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Brzezinski discloses that there is a plurality of electrical components connected to the printed circuit board of varying sizes (col. 7, ll. 58-60).
Regarding claim 4, Brzezinski discloses (Figs. 2, 3) that there is a second heat spreader layer (108) provided such that a first heat spreader layer (56, 92) is disposed on one side of the printed circuit board (26, 76) and the second heat spreader layer (108) is provided on an opposite side of the printed circuit board (Figs. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 5, Brzezinski discloses (Figs. 2, 3) that there are one or more electrical components (106) connected to a bottom surface of the printed circuit board (26, 76), and wherein the second heat spreader layer (108) is disposed between the electrical components (106) connected to the bottom surface of the printed circuit board and a cover member (14).
Regarding claim 6, Brzezinski discloses (Figs. 2, 3) a cover member (14) disposed below the printed circuit board (26, 76), wherein thermal interface material (108) is disposed between the printed circuit board (26, 76) and a cover member (14).
Regarding claim 7, Brzezinski discloses that the outer housing is constructed of aluminum (col. 3, ll. 66-68; col. 5, l. 52; col. 6, ll. 51-53, etc.).
Regarding claim 8, Brzezinski discloses (Figs. 2, 3) a cover member (14) that operatively connects to the outer housing (12, 66) to define a space in which the printed circuit board (26, 76), electrical components (28-38, 78, 80, 82, 84, 86, 88, and 106) and heat spreader layer (58, 92, 108) are disposed.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Brzezinski discloses (Figs. 2, 3) thermal interface material (58, 94) disposed between the first heat spreader layer (58, 94) and the outer housing (12, 66) and thermal interface material (110) disposed between the second heat spreader layer (108) and the cover member (14).
Regarding claim 12, Brzezinski discloses (Fig. 3) thermal interface material (18) disposed on an outside surface of the cover (14).
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.
Claims 2, 13, 14, and 15, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brzezinski taken alone.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Brzezinski discloses in relation to the embodiment of Fig. 1 that thermal interface material is disposed between the electrical components (28-38) disposed on the top surface of the printed circuit board (26) and the first heat spreader layer (56) in order to enhance thermal conduction (col. 6, ll. 25-30), but does not specifically mentions similar approach in relation to the embodiments of Figs, 2 and 3, i.e., that thermal interface material disposed between the electrical components disposed on the top surface of the printed circuit board and the first heat spreader layer and between the electrical components disposed on the bottom surface of the printed circuit board and the second heat spreader layer.
However, it would have been obvious thing to do to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in relation to said embodiments of Figs 2 and 3 as well, in order to analogously enhance thermal conduction and overall cooling efficiency (col. 6, ll. 25-30). Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Brzezinski does not disclose that the heat spreader layers are constructed of copper.
However, Brzezinski teaches that the heat spreader layers (i.e., metallic membrane(s)) should be “be thin, chemically stable and thermally conductive” (col. 5, ll. 12-14).
The Official Notice is taken by the Office of the facts outside of the current record that copper was well known in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for its very good thermal conduction and mechanical properties.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected copper for forming the heat spreader layers of Brzezinski in order to predictably achieve desired heat dissipation and cooling efficiency, while not exceeding targeted production costs of the device, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The additional prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, because of the teaching of various cooling arrangements for electronic devices with thermal conduction through component housing(s).
Furthermore, the Office would like to direct the Applicant’s attention to some references of record that could have been also used for statutory rejection of the at least independent claim 1, e.g., see US 2021/0315132 (Fig. 1c), US 11, 682, 605 (Fig. 1), etc.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 pm.
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 N. 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights