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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding instant independent claim 1, applicant asserts that:
“Regarding claim 1, the prior art does not teach or render obvious "a combination of the first portion and the second portion represents a single piece of information, the first portion and the second portion each being less than the entire single piece of information" as recited therein. The Office action cites to "AB123 AB123" in FIG. 7 of Ariumi as the claimed single piece of information. See Office action, p. 3. The Office action further reasons that because AB123 is alleged to be the same piece of information repeated twice, it is a single piece of information. See id.
However, under this interpretation, Ariumi does not read on claim 1 as currently amended. Claim 1 specifies that each portion is less than the entire single piece of information, and that the combination represents a single piece of information. Both of these cannot be true of Ariumi. Based on the Office action's current interpretation, "AB123" is the entire piece of information, not less than an entire piece of information. This is consistent with paragraph [0100] of Ariumi which characterizes "AB 123" as the identification mark 50.
Therefore, Ariumi does not teach this feature of claim 1. Ariumi taken together with Takemura and Watanabe does not render this feature obvious, either. Accordingly, it is requested that the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 4-11, 17 and 20 which depend from claim 1, be withdrawn.”
The examiner, however, disagrees.
Those skilled in the art would recognize that these claimed limitations do not involve any inventive concept. As long as Ariumi teaches that the engraved mark portion 50 does not overlap metal shield plate 118 as recited in instant claim 1 (see Ariumi, paragraphs [0139], [0141]), the differences merely depend on arbitrary structures of the engraved mark portion 50. In addition, the specification of the instant application fails to disclose any unexpected results obtained from having the first portion and the second portion each being less than the entire single piece of information. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Takemura, Watanabe, and Ariumi, such that the first portion and the second portion each is less than the entire single piece of information, in order to yield predictable results such as reduce number of symbols of the engraved mark portion 50.
Regarding newly-added claim 21, applicant’s attention is directed to Takemura, paragraph [0090], which discloses that the metal shield plate 34 contacts opposing surfaces of the metal shield layer 40.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner contends that the rejections to claims 1, 4-11, 17, and 20-21 are proper.
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 1, 4-11, 17, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemura (US 2011/0304993) in view of Watanabe (US 2015/0170988), and Ariumi (US 2020/0036103).
As to claim 1, Takemura discloses a high-frequency module (see at least figure 2) comprising: a module substrate 31 having a main surface 32; a first circuit component 35 and a second circuit component 36 (see paragraphs [0049], [0050]) arranged on the main surface 32; a resin member 39 covering at least a part of the main surface 32, the first circuit component 35, and the second circuit component 36; a metal shield layer 40 covering at least an upper surface of the resin member 39; and a metal shield plate 34 (see paragraphs [0065], [0067], [0081]) arranged on the main surface 32 and between the first circuit component 35 and the second circuit component 36 when the main surface 32 is viewed in a plan view, wherein the metal shield plate 34 is in contact with the metal shield layer 40.
Takemura fails to disclose an engraved mark portion indicating predetermined information is provided directly on the upper surface of the resin member 39. Watanabe discloses an engraved mark portion 7 (see figure 1) indicating predetermined information is provided directly on an upper surface of a resin member 6 (see paragraph [0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Watanabe to Takemura, in order to allow the user to easily view the production information such as the product number, the year of manufacture, and the manufacture plant where the apparatus was manufactured.
The combination of Takemura and Watanabe fails to disclose that (i) the engraved mark portion 7 (see Watanabe, figure 1) does not overlap at least an upper end surface of the metal shield plate 34 (see Takemura, figure 2) when the main surface is viewed in a plan view, (ii) the engraved mark portion includes a first portion and a second portion arranged across the metal shield plate when the main surface is viewed in a plan view, (iii) each of the first portion and the second portion includes a character, a figure, a symbol, or a two-dimensional code, and (iv) a combination of the first portion and the second portion represents a single piece of information. Ariumi discloses (i) an engraved mark portion 50 (see figures 1B, 7) indicating predetermined information is provided on an upper surface of a resin member 120 (see figure 1B), wherein the engraved mark portion 50 does not overlap at least an upper end surface of a metal shield plate 118 when the main surface is viewed in a plan view (see figure 7, paragraph [0139]), (ii) wherein the engraved mark portion 50 includes a first portion B1 and a second portion B2 arranged across the metal shield plate 118 when the main surface is viewed in a plan view, (iii) each of the first portion B1 and the second portion B2 includes a character, a figure, a symbol, or a two-dimensional code (see figure 7), and (iv) a combination of the first portion B1 and the second portion B2 represents a single piece of information (i.e., “AB123”). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Ariumi to the combination of Takemura and Watanabe, in order to allow the engraved mark portion 50 to be viewed entirely.
The combination of Takemura, Watanabe, and Ariumi fails to disclose the first portion and the second portion each being less than the entire single piece of information. Those skilled in the art would recognize that these claimed limitations do not involve any inventive concept. As long as Ariumi teaches that the engraved mark portion 50 does not overlap metal shield plate 118 as recited in instant claim 1 (see Ariumi, paragraphs [0139], [0141]), the differences merely depend on arbitrary structures of the engraved mark portion 50. In addition, the specification of the instant application fails to disclose any unexpected results obtained from having the first portion and the second portion each being less than the entire single piece of information. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Takemura, Watanabe, and Ariumi, such that the first portion and the second portion each is less than the entire single piece of information, in order to yield predictable results such as reduce number of symbols of the engraved mark portion 50.
As to claim 4, the combination of Takemura and Ariumi discloses that the first circuit component is arranged in any of a transmission path for transmitting a transmission signal, a reception path for transmitting a reception signal, and a transmission/reception path for transmitting a transmission signal and a reception signal, and the second circuit component is arranged in any of the transmission path, the reception path, and the transmission/reception path except for a path in which the first circuit component is arranged (see Takemura, paragraph [0050] which discloses that the first circuit is a Bluetooth circuit, and the second circuit is a FM circuit).
As to claims 5, 17, Takemura discloses that the upper end surface of the metal shield plate 34 (see at least figure 2) is flush with the upper surface of the resin member 39.
As to claims 6, 20, Takemura discloses that the metal shield plate 34 is provided with a through-hole 54 (see figure 4A) penetrating in a direction parallel to the main surface 32.
As to claim 7, Takemura discloses that the through-hole 54 (see the through-hole 54 located at the bottom of the base 51 in figure 4A) has a shape cut out from a lower end surface toward the upper end surface of the metal shield plate 34.
As to claim 8, Takemura discloses that the through-hole 54 (see the through-hole 54 located at the upper left of the metal shield plate 34) has a shape cut out from the upper end surface toward a lower end surface of the metal shield plate 34.
As to claim 9, Takemura discloses that the metal shield plate includes: a main body portion vertically arranged on the main surface; and an extension portion arranged to extend in parallel to the main surface from a lower end portion of the main body portion, and wherein the extension portion is bonded to a ground electrode provided on the main surface.
As to claim 10, Takemura discloses that the metal shield plate 34 includes: a main body portion (see at least numerical 56 in figure 4A) bonded to a ground electrode 38 provided on the main surface 32 and vertically arranged on the main surface 32; and a flat-plate-shaped main body end portion 51a arranged at an end portion of the main body portion 56 located in a direction parallel to the main surface 32 and vertically arranged from the main surface toward the upper surface of the resin member 39, and wherein the main body portion 56 and the main body end portion 51a are not parallel to each other.
As to claim 11, Takemura discloses a communication device (see paragraph [0050]) comprising: an RF signal processing circuit 35, 36 configured to process a high-frequency signal transmitted and received by an antenna (inherently included); and the high-frequency module according to Claim 1, configured to transmit the high-frequency signal between the antenna and the RF signal processing circuit (see paragraph [0050]).
As to claim 21, Takemura discloses that the metal shield plate 34 contacts opposing surfaces of the metal shield layer 40. See paragraph [0090].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jongmyyoung (KR20190080245A) discloses that a metal shield plate contacts opposing surfaces of a metal shield layer. See paragraph [0066].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN THANH VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7901. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Jeanette J Parker can be reached at (571) 270-3647. 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.
/NGUYEN T VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights