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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “positioning structure” in claim 1; and “structure” in claim 9..
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 2, and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama (US 20090237537) in view of Krill (WO 20220175520).
Claim 1: Maruyama discloses an electronic apparatus comprising:
a heat radiating member to which heat generated by an electronic component is transferred (Inner housing 61 acts to radiate heat that is generated by the camera and transferred to housing 61. ¶¶ 17 and 33; Fig. 3.);
an exterior member covering the heat radiating member (Exterior housing 11. Fig. 3 and ¶ 17.); and
a positioning structure configured to position the heat radiating member relative to the exterior member (Inner housing 61 is fixed relative to outer housing 11 such that a space is formed between the two. ¶ 31. Fixing projections form a positioning structure to define the heat dissipating space. Id.).
Maruyama discloses that a space is defined between inner housing 61 and outer housing 11 (see e.g. Abstract), but does not disclose that the heat radiating member does not contact the exterior member.
It was well known in the relevant art to provide a fixing structure between a heat radiating member and a housing such that the radiating member does not directly contact the housing. For example, Krill discloses a positioning structure configured to position a heat radiating member relative to an exterior member so that the heat radiating member does not contact the exterior member (Krill pg. 4 ¶ 1 of the provided English translation, which corresponds to pg. 5 line 27 – pg. 6 line 5 of the original German document.).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maruyama with teachings in Krill. The POSITA would have been motivated by Krill to use Krill’s intermediate piece 10, made of a lower thermal conductivity, to connect Maruyama’s inner housing 61 to the outer housing 11. The POSITA would have concluded that this modification would have provided “thermal decoupling” between the heat-radiating inner housing 61 and the outer housing 11.
Claim 2: Maruyama-Krill discloses that the positioning structure includes a member having a thermal conductivity lower than that of the heat radiating member (Intermediate piece 10 has lower thermal conductivity than the heat sink. See Krill pg. 4 ¶ 1.).
Claim 4: Maruyama-Krill discloses that the positioning structure includes a member that is fixed to the exterior member and positions the heat radiating member relative to the exterior member in a direction orthogonal to an assembly direction of the heat radiating member and the exterior member (Krill pg. 4 and Maruyama Fig. 5).
Maruyama-Krill does not disclose that the positioning structure includes a resin member. However, official notice is taken that this type of material was a well known thermal insulator. Therefore it would have been obvious to the POSITA to use a resin member in place of Krill’s rubber piece, the rationale being to simplify production and lower cost.
Claim 5: Maruyama-Krill disclose that the resin member is a member that supports an operation unit operable by a user (The rubber piece/resin member of Maruyama-Krill supports Maruyama’s housing 11 and back side housing 20, which contains the camera’s operation units operable by the user. See e.g. Maruyama Fig. 4.).
Claim 6: Maruyama-Krill discloses an intermediate member disposed between the heat radiating member and the exterior member so that the heat radiating member does not contact the exterior member (Krill pg. 4.).
Claim 7: Maruyama-Krill discloses that the intermediate member is a member having a thermal conductivity lower than that of the heat radiating member (Krill pg. 4).
Claim 8: Maruyama-Krill renders obvious that the intermediate member is a resin sheet or a flexible printed circuit (see rejection of claim 4).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama-Krill in view of Nakada, WO 2021095547.
Claim 9: Maruyama-Krill discloses that a space is formed between the heat radiating member and the exterior member, wherein the electronic apparatus further comprises a structure configured to radiate the heat from the heat radiating member to air in the space (The structure of the unit creates the heat dissipating space between inner housing 61 and outer housing 11 and enables heat to be dissipated into the air of this space. Maruyama ¶ 31.).
Maruyama-Krill does not disclose that the electronic apparatus further comprises a structure configured to discharge the air to outside of the electronic apparatus.
Nakada discloses an imaging device with a structure configured to discharge air to outside of the electronic apparatus (Fig. 6 and its description).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maruyama-Krill with this structure in Nakada, the rationale being to more quickly and efficiently remove heated air from the camera.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama-Krill in view of Shiozaki, JP 2021150763.
Claim 10: Maruyama-Krill fails to disclose a control unit configured to restrict an operation of the electronic apparatus according to a temperature of the exterior member.
Shiozaki discloses a camera with a control unit configured to restrict an operation of the electronic apparatus according to a temperature of the exterior member (Based in part on readings from temperature sensor 220a, which detects the temperature of the exterior housing, operations of the camera are restricted. See Abstract, and Fig. 3 – Fig. 5 and their description. The camera is restricted by limiting the video recording time. See id.).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maruyama-Krill with this structure in Nakada, the rationale being to ensure that high temperatures do not damage the camera. See Nakada Background.
Claim 11: Maruyama-Krill-Nakada discloses that the electronic apparatus is an image pickup apparatus configured to image an object and generate an image, and wherein the control unit reduces a continuous moving image capturing time or lowers a continuous still-image shooting speed according to the temperature (Nakada Abstract, and Fig. 3 – Fig. 5 and their description.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J HANCE whose telephone number is (571)270-5319. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00am-7:00pm ET.
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, Michael Fuelling can be reached at (571) 270-1367. 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.
/ROBERT J HANCE/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights