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 .
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.
The following title is suggested: “Electronic device including water guide member”.
Drawings
Figures 1-2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 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 1,2, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (CN 209787578 U, and Wu hereinafter) in view of Lee (KR 102340914 B1, and Lee hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1, Wu discloses an electronic device comprising:
a printed wiring board (21, fig. 4) having a first surface (top) and a second surface (bottom) opposite to the first surface, and including a penetration hole (211, fig. 4) that penetrates the first surface and the second surface (fig. 4);
an electronic component (22, fig. 4) mounted on the first surface of the printed wiring board (fig. 4);
a water guide member ( top surface of m, fig. 6) disposed on the second surface side of the printed wiring board (fig. 6), the water guide member at least partially facing the penetration hole (fig. 6); and
a case (1, fig. 6) that houses the printed wiring board, the electronic component, and the water guide member (fig. 6), wherein a part, of the water guide member, facing the penetration hole has a protruding shape or includes a surface that is sloped away from the second surface (slope of m, fig. 6).
Wu does not explicitly disclose the water guide member is disposed in such a way that the shortest distance to a centroid of a shape of an end part of the penetration hole on the second surface side is smaller than a radius of the largest circle that is insertable in the shape of the end part.
Lee discloses a water guide member (312, fig. 5) is disposed in such a way that the shortest distance to a centroid of a shape of an end part of the penetration hole on the second surface side is smaller than a radius of the largest circle that is insertable in the shape of the end part (annotated figure I below, inclined segment AB has a (perpendicular) distance, d, from the centroid, C, of a horizontal circle of radius R; since d has a value of 0 when angle θ = 0[Symbol font/0xB0], and d has a value of d = R when θ= 90[Symbol font/0xB0], then, distance d is less than R for any inclination angle 0[Symbol font/0xB0] < θ < 90[Symbol font/0xB0])
PNG
media_image1.png
873
1209
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wu to incorporate the teachings of Lee so that the water guide member is disposed in such a way that the shortest distance to a centroid of a shape of an end part of the penetration hole on the second surface side is smaller than a radius of the largest circle that is insertable in the shape of the end part, in order to prevent droplets from being formed/stored in the drain hole due to water’s surface tension (“the first drain hole 310 is configured such that the discharge guide part 312 protruding downward from the drain inlet part 311 has an asymmetric shape, so that the first drain hole 310 is formed. The weakening of the surface tension acting on, and thus there is an advantage that can prevent the water condensation occurs in the drain hole”, [0089] of Lee). This modification can be implemented by adding the guide portion 312 of Lee adjacent the penetration hole of Wu.
Regarding Claim 2, Wu/Lee discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein a shape of a hole of the penetration hole in the printed wiring board is a circle (Wu, fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Wu/Lee discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the case includes a drain hole that communicates with outside of the electronic device (121, fig. 6 of Wu).
Regarding Claim 7, Wu/Lee the electronic device according to claim 2, wherein the case includes a drain hole that communicates with outside of the electronic device (121, fig. 6 of Wu).
Claims 3-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Lee, further in view of Mori et al. (US 20140231232 A1, and Mori hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 3, Wu/Lee discloses the electronic device according to claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose a shape of a hole of the penetration hole in the printed wiring board is an ellipse.
Mori discloses a shape of a hole of a penetration hole is an ellipse (31, fig. 1, “drain holes 30 and 32 may be made into a circular or an elliptical shape. The same holds true for the through-hole 31 of the circuit board 6”, [0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wu and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Mori so that a shape of a hole of the penetration hole in the printed wiring board is an ellipse, in order to prevent complete circular symmetry and reduce remanent water in the hole due to water’s surface tension (“The weakening of the surface tension acting on, and thus there is an advantage that can prevent the water condensation occurs in the drain hole”, [0089] of Lee). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized said modification would be equivalent to a change in shape. Absent disclosure of functional or structural criticality, changes in shape have been ruled by the courts to carry no patentable weight (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04, IV, B).
Regarding Claim 4, Wu/Lee discloses the electronic device according to claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose a shape of a hole of the penetration hole in the printed wiring board is a quadrilateral.
Mori discloses a shape of a hole of a penetration hole in a printed wiring board is a quadrilateral (31, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wu and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Mori so that a shape of a hole of the penetration hole in the printed wiring board is a quadrilateral, in order to prevent complete circular symmetry and reduce remanent water in the hole due to water’s surface tension (“The weakening of the surface tension acting on, and thus there is an advantage that can prevent the water condensation occurs in the drain hole”, [0089] of Lee). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized said modification would be equivalent to a change in shape. Absent disclosure of functional or structural criticality, changes in shape have been ruled by the courts to carry no patentable weight (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04, IV, B).
Regarding Claim 8, Wu/Lee/Mori discloses the electronic device according to claim 3, wherein the case includes a drain hole that communicates with outside of the electronic device (121, fig. 6 of Wu).
Regarding Claim 9, Wu/Lee/Mori discloses the electronic device according to claim 4, wherein the case includes a drain hole that communicates with outside of the electronic device (121, fig. 6 of Wu).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 10-12 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:
Regarding Claims 6 and 10-12, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “the electronic component is a connector component including a protruding part, and the protruding part of the connector is inserted in the penetration hole”. Mori (US 20140233196 A1), Wu (CN 209787578 U), Sampson (US 5697812 A), Yoshida (US 20080299799 A1), Iguchi (US 20260143596 A1), Hara (US 20150162698 A1), Sasaki (US 20200390000 A1), Oda (US 20180013230 A1), Kaminishi (US 20180013230 A1), are also cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including a display panel, a box, a connection frame, and/or a vibration actuator. However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
For instance, Wu discloses a printed wiring board (21, fig. 4) having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, and including a penetration hole (211, fig. 4) that penetrates the first surface and the second surface (fig. 4); an electronic component (22, fig. 4) mounted on the first surface of the printed wiring board (fig. 4); a water guide member ( top surface of m, fig. 6) disposed on the second surface side of the printed wiring board (fig. 6), the water guide member at least partially facing the penetration hole (fig. 6); and a case (1, fig. 6) that houses the printed wiring board, the electronic component, and the water guide member (fig. 6), wherein a part, of the water guide member, facing the penetration hole has a protruding shape or includes a surface that is sloped away from the second surface (slope of m, fig. 6). Wu does not explicitly disclose the protruding part of the connector is inserted in the penetration hole.
Mori discloses a printed wiring board (6, fig. 1) including a penetration hole (31, fig. 6); an electronic component (8, fig. 1) mounted on a first surface of the printed wiring board; a case (9, fig. 1) that houses the printed wiring board, and the electronic component (fig. 1); wherein the electronic component is a connector component including a protruding part (fig. 3). However, Mori lacks, a water guide member, and the protruding part of the connector is inserted in the penetration hole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Martin A Asmat-Uceda whose telephone number is (571)270-7198. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 5 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, Allen L Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. 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.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/MARTIN ANTONIO ASMAT UCEDA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights