DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on September 28, 2022.
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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains fewer than 50 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 25:
line 2: "integrated circuit package" should be --integrated circuit (IC) package-- to prevent any possible confusion regarding later mentions of the "IC package."
line 3: "IC package" should be --the IC package-- to make it clearer that the claim is referring to the aforementioned integrated circuit package.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
In particular, claims 69-72 are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) due to the following limitations: “means for receiving an integrated circuit (IC) package” or “receiving means,” and “means for increasing contact between the receiving means and the IC package” or “contact increasing means.”
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, 8, 11-12, 15, 20-22, 24-25, 69 and 71-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodwin (US-6282093-B1) in view of Elenitoba-Johnson, et al. (US-20200137896-A1).
With respect to Claim 1:
Goodwin discloses an apparatus comprising:
a back plate 50;
a circuit board 70 disposed between the back plate 50 and a socket 40 (Figs. 1A-1B); and
a sheet 80 disposed between the back plate 50 and the circuit board 70 (Figs. 1A-1B).
Goodwin does not explicitly disclose wherein the sheet is a spring sheet.
However, Elenitoba-Johnson teaches a circuit board carrier comprising a base (Fig. 2) on which a printed circuit board (PCB) is mounted on, wherein the base comprises leaf springs 202 intended to maintain a desired vertical position of the PCB ([0021]).
Thus, Goodwin and Elenitoba-Johnson each disclose apparatuses for securing a PCB. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the spring-like features of the base of Elenitoba-Johnson could be combined with the backing plate insulator 80 of Goodwin because it would help reinforce the PCB and maintain its desired vertical position (Elenitoba-Johnson: [0021]). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the modification.
With respect to Claim 2
Goodwin in view of Elenitoba-Johnson discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Goodwin further discloses wherein the spring sheet 80 directly abuts the back plate 50 (Figs. 1A-1B).
With respect to Claim 8
Goodwin in view of Elenitoba-Johnson discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Goodwin further discloses wherein the spring sheet 80 includes: a first spring location having a first curvature (Fig. 1A: the left edge of 80); a second spring location having a second curvature (Fig. 1A: the right edge of 80); and an intermediate portion coupling the first spring location and the second spring location (Fig. 1A: both edges are coupled by a center portion of 80).
With respect to Claim 11
Goodwin in view of Elenitoba-Johnson discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Goodwin further discloses wherein the spring sheet includes a first end (Fig. 1A: the left end of 80 containing a pair of holes) fixedly coupled to the back plate 50 (via posts 60).
With respect to Claim 12
Goodwin in view of Elenitoba-Johnson discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Goodwin in view of Elenitoba-Johnson further discloses wherein the spring sheet is to apply a force on the circuit board near a center of the socket (Figs. 1A-1B: if 80 of Goodwin is modified to include the springs of Elenitoba-Johnson, it would apply a force on the circuit board 70 near a center of the socket 40, given the location of 80).
With respect to Claim 15
Goodwin discloses an apparatus comprising:
a back plate 50;
a socket 40 including a plurality of pins;
a circuit board 70 coupled to the socket 40 (col. 3, lines 28-31);
an integrated circuit package 90 interfaced with the socket 40 via the pins (Figs. 1A-1B; col. 3, lines 28-39); and
a sheet 80 disposed between the back plate 50 and the circuit board 70 (Figs. 1A-1B).
Goodwin does not explicitly disclose wherein the sheet is a spring sheet.
However, Elenitoba-Johnson teaches a circuit board carrier comprising a base (Fig. 2) on which a printed circuit board (PCB) is mounted on, wherein the base comprises leaf springs 202 intended to maintain a desired vertical position of the PCB ([0021]).
Thus, Goodwin and Elenitoba-Johnson each disclose apparatuses for securing a PCB. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the spring-like features of the base of Elenitoba-Johnson could be combined with the backing plate insulator 80 of Goodwin because it would help reinforce the PCB and maintain its desired vertical position (Elenitoba-Johnson: [0021]). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the modification.
With respect to Claim 20
Goodwin in view of Elenitoba-Johnson discloses the apparatus of claim 15.
Goodwin further discloses including a fastener 25 compressively coupling the integrated circuit package 90 to the socket 40 (Figs. 1A-1B).
With respect to Claim 21
Goodwin in view of Elenitoba-Johnson discloses the apparatus of claim 15.
Goodwin further discloses wherein the spring sheet 80 includes: a first spring location having a first curvature (Fig. 1A: the left edge of 80); a second spring location having a second curvature (Fig. 1A: the right edge of 80); and an intermediate portion coupling the first spring location and the second spring location (Fig. 1A: both edges are coupled by a center portion of 80).
With respect to Claim 22
Goodwin in view of Elenitoba-Johnson discloses the apparatus of claim 15.
Goodwin in view of Elenitoba-Johnson further discloses wherein the spring sheet 80 is to urge the socket 40 toward the integrated circuit 90 (Figs. 1A-1B: given the location of 80, if 80 of Goodwin is modified to include the springs of Elenitoba-Johnson, it would apply a force on the circuit board 70 near a center of the socket 40 and thus urge the socket 40 toward the integrated circuit 90).
With respect to Claim 24
Goodwin discloses a method comprising:
coupling a sheet 80 to a back plate 50 (Figs. 1A-1B);
coupling a socket 40 to a first surface 71 of a circuit board 70 (Fig. 1A; col. 3, lines 28-39); and
disposing the sheet 80 next to the circuit board 70 such that the sheet is between the circuit board 70 and the back plate 50 (Figs. 1A-1B).
Goodwin does not explicitly disclose wherein the sheet is a spring sheet.
However, Elenitoba-Johnson teaches a circuit board carrier comprising a base (Fig. 2) on which a printed circuit board (PCB) is mounted on, wherein the base comprises leaf springs 202 intended to maintain a desired vertical position of the PCB ([0021]).
Thus, Goodwin and Elenitoba-Johnson each disclose apparatuses for securing a PCB. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the spring-like features of the base of Elenitoba-Johnson could be combined with the backing plate insulator 80 of Goodwin because it would help reinforce the PCB and maintain its desired vertical position (Elenitoba-Johnson: [0021]). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the modification.
With respect to Claim 25
Goodwin in view of Elenitoba-Johnson discloses the method of claim 24.
Goodwin further discloses disposing an integrated circuit (IC) package 90 within the socket 40 (Fig. 1A); and applying, via a tightening of a fastener 60, a compressive force to the circuit board 70, the IC package 90, the back plate 50, and the socket 40, the compressive force causing the socket 40 and the IC package 90 to warp in a complementary manner (abstract).
With respect to Claim 69
Goodwin discloses an apparatus comprising:
a circuit board 70;
means (socket 40) for receiving an integrated circuit (IC) package 90, the receiving means carried by the circuit board 70 (Figs. 1A-1B; col. 3, lines 28-31); and
the circuit board 70 between the receiving means 40 and a backing plate insulator 80.
Goodwin does not explicitly disclose means for increasing contact between the receiving means and the IC package, the contact increasing means to urge a center of the receiving means towards the IC package.
However, Elenitoba-Johnson teaches a circuit board carrier comprising a base (Fig. 2) on which a printed circuit board (PCB) is mounted on, wherein the base comprises leaf springs 202 intended to maintain a desired vertical position of the PCB ([0021]).
Thus, Goodwin and Elenitoba-Johnson each disclose apparatuses for securing a PCB. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the spring-like features of the base of Elenitoba-Johnson could be combined with the backing plate insulator 80 of Goodwin because it would help reinforce the PCB and apply an upward biasing force (Elenitoba-Johnson: [0021]). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the modification. This would result in the backing plate insulator 80 of Goodwin functioning as contact increasing means and urge the center of the receiving means toward the IC package 90 (Figs. 1A-1B: the backing plate insulator 80 is located below the socket 40).
With respect to Claim 71
Goodwin in view of Elenitoba-Johnson discloses the apparatus of claim 69.
Goodwin further discloses a back plate 50 (Figs. 1A-1B).
With respect to Claim 72
Goodwin in view of Elenitoba-Johnson discloses the apparatus of claim 71.
Goodwin further discloses wherein the back plate includes the contact increasing means 80 (Figs. 1A-1B: the backing plate insulator 80 is aligned and connected to the back plate 50).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 9, 13-14, 16-18, 23, 26 and 70 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 Claim 3, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting "wherein the spring sheet has a first surface to face towards the back plate and a second surface to face towards the circuit board, the first surface having a concave curvature," as recited in claim 3, in conjunction with ALL the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 3. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 3, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 1 is allowable.
Regarding Claim 4, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting "wherein the spring sheet has a first surface to face towards the back plate and a second surface to face towards the circuit board, a first point on the first surface to be spaced a first distance away from the back plate, a second point on the first surface to be spaced a second distance away from the back plate, the first distance greater than the second distance," as recited in claim 4, in conjunction with ALL the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 4. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 4, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 1 is allowable.
Regarding Claim 5, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting "wherein the spring sheet is a first spring sheet, the first spring sheet disposed adjacent to a first location of the back plate, the apparatus further including a second spring sheet disposed adjacent to a second location," as recited in claim 5, in conjunction with ALL the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 5. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 5, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 1 is allowable.
Claims 6-7 are dependent on claim 5 and therefore would be allowable.
Regarding Claim 9, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting "wherein the first spring location is closer to a center of the socket than the second spring location," as recited in claim 9, in conjunction with ALL the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 9. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 9, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 1 is allowable.
Regarding Claim 13, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting "wherein the force is to cause the socket to have a profile defined by a convex surface facing away from the circuit board," as recited in claim 13, in conjunction with ALL the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 13. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 13, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 1 is allowable.
Claim 14 is dependent on claim 13 and therefore would be allowable.
Regarding Claim 16, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting "wherein the spring sheet has a first surface to face towards the back plate and a second surface to face towards the circuit board, a first point on the second surface to be spaced a first distance away from the circuit board, a second point on the second surface to be spaced a second distance away from the circuit board, the first distance greater than the second distance," as recited in claim 16, in conjunction with ALL the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 16. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 16, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 15 is allowable.
Regarding Claim 17, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting "wherein the spring sheet is a first spring sheet, the first spring sheet disposed adjacent to a first location of the back plate, the apparatus further including a second spring sheet disposed adjacent to a second location," as recited in claim 17, in conjunction with ALL the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 17. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 17, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 15 is allowable.
Claim 18 is dependent on claim 17 and therefore would be allowable.
Regarding Claim 23, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting "wherein the spring sheet has a first surface facing towards the back plate and a second surface facing towards the socket, the first surface having a concave curvature," as recited in claim 23, in conjunction with ALL the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 23. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 23, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 15 is allowable.
Regarding Claim 26, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting "wherein the spring sheet is a first spring sheet, the coupling of the spring sheet including coupling the first spring sheet to a first location of the back plate, the method further including disposing a second spring sheet adjacent to a second location of the back plate," as recited in claim 26, in conjunction with ALL the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 26. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 26, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 24 is allowable.
Regarding Claim 70, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting "wherein the contact increasing means causing a load distribution between the IC package and the receiving means to be substantially equal across the IC package," as recited in claim 70, in conjunction with ALL the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 70. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 70, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 69 is allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amara Anderson whose telephone number is (703)756-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 09:00 - 17:00 EST..
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, Abdullah A. Riyami can be reached at (571)270-3119. 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.
/AMARA ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2831 /ABDULLAH A RIYAMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831