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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 4, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed February 4, 2026 has been entered. Independent claims 1 and 13 have been amended, and new claims 18-20 have been added. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 4, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the rejection of claim 13 under §102(a)(1) is not persuasive. Applicant argues that Sato does not disclose “a circuit board shield that … exposes the first region and the entire first connector.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Sato’s connection pad 22 can be considered “a first connector.” Work window 13, formed in top board 4a, exposes the region on which connection pad 22 is mounted and the entirety of connection pad 22.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under §103 is not persuasive. Applicant argues that neither Nakamura nor Sato discloses “a circuit board shield that … exposes the first region and the entire first connector.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Sato’s connection pad 22 can be considered “a first connector.” Work window 13, formed in top board 4a, exposes the region on which connection pad 22 is mounted and the entirety of connection pad 22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (JP 2008-147285 A), hereinafter Sato.
Regarding claim 13, Sato teaches a method of assembling an electronic device, comprising:
mounting a first connector (connection pad 22) to a first surface (top of surface of wiring board 3) of a first circuit board (3), wherein the first connector (22) is mounted within a first region (region where connection pad 22 is disposed) of the first circuit board (3) (Examiner Note: connection pad 22 is shown mounted to a top surface of wiring board 3 within a first region, therefore this step of the method is inherently disclosed);
fixing, to the first circuit board (3), a circuit board shield (top board 4a) that covers a portion of the first surface (top surface of 3) of the first circuit board (3) and exposes the first region (where 22 is disposed) and the entire first connector (22) (Examiner Note: top board 4a is shown fixed to an covering the top surface of wiring board 3 and exposing the first region and the entirety of mounting pad 22, therefore this step of the method is inherently disclosed); and
fixing, to the circuit board shield (4a), a connector shield (window lid 17) that covers the first region and the first connector (see Fig. 1 showing widow lid 17 fixed to and covering the first region and connection pad 22, therefore this step of the method is inherently disclosed).
Regarding claim 14, Sato teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 as stated above. Sato
further teaches method of assembling an electronic device of claim 13, further comprising: connecting, prior to fixing the connector shield to the circuit board shield, a cable to the first connector (from pg. 3, paragraphs 10-11: “The core wire 21 may be soldered directly to the pad 22. When the connection work is completed, the window lid 17 is fitted into the seat facing portion 16 and fixed by the bolt 18”).
Regarding claim 20, Sato teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 as stated above. Sato further teaches the method of assembling an electronic device of claim 13, wherein removal of the connector shield (17) from the circuit board shield (4a) allows a removal of a cable from the first connector (22) without detaching the circuit board shield (4a) from the first circuit board (3) (core wire 21 can be desoldered from connection pad 22 through window lid 17 without the need to detach top board 4a).
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.
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 1-7 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 12,245,384 B2), hereinafter Nakamura, in view of Sato.
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches an electronic device (signal transmission circuit 100) comprising:
a first circuit board (circuit board 102) on which a first connector (connector signal terminal 104) is mounted within a first region (region where connector signal terminal 104 is mounted) on a first surface (top surface of first layer 102a) of the first circuit board (102);
a second circuit board (integrated circuit 113) on which a second connector (integrated circuit signal terminal 114) connected to the first connector (104) via a cable (wiring 112) is mounted;
a circuit board shield (metal cover 130) that covers a portion of the first surface (top surface of 102a) of the first circuit board (102); and
a connector shield (connector shield 400) that is attached to the circuit board shield (130) to cover the first region (region where 104 is mounted) and the first connector (104).
Nakamura fails to teach that the circuit board shield exposes the first region and the entire
first connector, and lacks the specific teaching that the connector shield is removable from the circuit board shield.
Sato teaches an electronic device comprising a circuit board (wiring board 3) on which a connector (connection pad 22) is mounted, a circuit board shield (top board 4a) that covers a top surface of the circuit board (3) and exposes a region on which the connector (22) is mounted and the entire connector (see Fig. 4), and connector shield (window lid 17) that is attached to the circuit board shield (4a) to cover the region on which the connector is mounted and the connector (22). The connector shield (17) and is removable from the circuit board shield (see Abstract).
Nakamura and Sato are considered to be analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the device taught by Nakamura by allowing metal cover 130 to expose the entirety of connector signal terminal 104 and coaxial connector 103, and to use a removable connector shield to cover and shield these connectors and any proximate components. Doing so would be beneficial because the entire shielding structure would not need to be removed in order to work on or replace the connector (see Sato: “Since the work window is detachable closed by a window lid that is a part of the shield case, the connector can be attached and replaced by simply removing the window lid, which facilitates workability and reduces work costs.”).
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura in view of Sato teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Nakamura in view of Sato further teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein a third connector (Nakamura: coaxial connector 103) is mounted on the first circuit board (Nakamura: 102), and the connector shield (Sato: 17) covers the first connector and the third connector (see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura in view of Sato teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Nakamura in view of Sato further teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the first connector (Nakamura: 104) has a locking mechanism that fixes the cable (Nakamura: 112) to the first connector (Nakamura: 104), and the connector shield (Sato: 17) covers the locking mechanism (Examiner Note: There must inherently be some type of locking mechanism that serves the purpose of fixing wiring 112 to connector signal terminal 104, otherwise the device would not function).
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura in view of Sato teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Nakamura in view of Sato further teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, further comprising: a fixture (Sato: bolts 18) to be inserted into a mounting hole (Sato: see Figs. 1-2) formed in the connector shield (Sato: 17), a mounting hole (Sato: see Figs. 2 and 4) formed in the circuit board shield (Sato: 4a), and a mounting hole (Sato: see Fig. 2) formed in the first circuit board (Sato: 3).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura in view of Sato teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Nakamura in view of Sato further teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein a positioning protrusion (Sato: countersunk portion 16) is formed on the circuit board shield (Sato: 4a), and a hole (Sato: see Fig. 2 showing four holes in window lid 17) into which the positioning protrusion (Sato: 16) is fitted (Sato: the four holes in window lid 17 fit with the four holes formed in countersunk portion 16) is formed in the connector shield (Sato: 17).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura in view of Sato teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Nakamura in view of Sato further teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the connector shield (Sato: 17) comprises a conductive metal selected from the group consisting of iron and aluminum (from Sato pg. 2, last paragraph: “[S]hield case 4 [is] made of a metal material such as aluminum”; from Sato pg. 3, paragraph 5: “[T]he window lid 17 complements the shielding performance and constitutes a part of the shield case 4”). Sato suggests that window lid 17 is made from the same material as shield case 4, which may be aluminum. Nevertheless, it would be obvious to use aluminum 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura in view of Sato teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Nakamura in view of Sato further teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the connector shield (Sato: 17) comprises a bend that abuts against an edge of the circuit board shield (Sato: 4a) or the first circuit board (Examiner Note: each of the four corners of window lid 17 can reasonably be considered a bend that abuts against the outer edge of seating portion 16).
Regarding claim 18, Nakamura in view of Sato teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Nakamura in view of Sato further teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein removal of the connector shield (Sato: 17) from the circuit board shield (Sato: 4a) allows a removal of the cable (Sato: core wire 21) from the first connector (Sato: 22) without detaching the circuit board shield (Sato: 4a) from the first circuit board (3) (core wire 21 can be desoldered from connection pad 22 through window lid 17 without the need to detach top board 4a).
Regarding claim 19, Nakamura in view of Sato teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Nakamura in view of Sato further teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first circuit board (Nakamura: 102) has a second region (Nakamura: where wiring 112 is disposed) on which electronic components (Nakamura: wiring 112) are arranged, and wherein the first region is outside the second region (Nakamura: see Fig. 5).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura and Sato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (US 10,462,943 B2), hereinafter Chang.
Nakamura in view of Sato teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Nakamura in view of Sato lacks the specific teaching that the circuit board shield forms a guide protrusion projecting upward from a surrounding surface of the circuit board shield away from the first surface of the first circuit board; and the connector shield forms a guide hole aligned in a vertical direction with the guide protrusion that accepts the guide protrusion therethrough.
Chang teaches a circuit board shield (shield frame 1) that forms a guide protrusion (top wedging protrusion 121C) projecting upward from a surrounding surface (see Figs. 2B-3B) of the circuit board shield (1) away from the top surface of a circuit board (circuit board P) and a shield cover (2) that forms a guide hole (cover top opening 221) aligned in a vertical direction with the guide protrusion (121C) that accepts the guide protrusion therethrough (see Fig. 3B).
Chang is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to incorporate at least one guide protrusion on the circuit board shield to mate with a corresponding guide hole in the connector shield. Doing so would provide means to align the connector shield on the circuit board shield and also provide an additional attachment mechanism to secure the connector shield to the circuit board shield.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura and Sato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shino (US 2006/0046559 A1).
Nakamura in view of Sato teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Nakamura in view of Sato lacks the specific teaching that the cable is a flexible flat cable and the first connector is a flexible flat cable connector.
Nakamura in view of Sato discloses the claimed invention except that the cable is a wire and the connector is a terminal pad. Shino shows that flat flexible cables and flat flexible cable connectors are equivalent structures known in the art. Therefore, because these two cables and connectors were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a flat flexible cable and a flat flexible cable for the wire and terminal pad.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Nakamura.
Sato teaches all of the limitation of claim 13 as stated above. Sato lacks the teaching that the method further comprises mounting, to the first surface of the first circuit board, a second connector, wherein the circuit board shield further exposes the second connector, and wherein the connector shield further covers the second connector.
Nakamura teaches a method comprising mounting multiple connectors (103, 104, and 105) to a surface of a circuit board (102) in a way that both connectors are covered by a connector shield (400).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to add an additional connector to the device of Sato in a way that the inner region of each connector is exposed by top board 4a and covered by window lid 17. Doing so would allow access to more connectors. Further, it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 and 16-17 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.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art neither teaches nor suggests that “the first circuit board comprises a first fixing portion; the circuit board shield comprises a second fixing portion aligned in a vertical direction with the first fixing portion; the connector shield comprises a third fixing portion aligned in the vertical direction with the first fixing portion and the second fixing portion; and the electronic device further comprises a fixture passing through the first fixing portion, the second fixing portion, and the third fixing portion, thereby fixing the connector shield and the circuit board shield to the first circuit board.”
Claims 11-12 depend on claim 10 and would therefore be allowable for at least the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art neither teaches nor suggests that “the first circuit board comprises a first fixing portion; the circuit board shield comprises a second fixing portion; the connector shield comprises a third fixing portion; fixing the circuit board shield to the first circuit board comprises aligning the first fixing portion with the second fixing portion; and fixing the connector shield to the circuit board shield comprises aligning the third fixing portion with the second fixing portion and passing a fixture through the third fixing portion, the second fixing portion, and the first fixing portion.”
Regarding claim 17, the prior art neither teaches nor suggests that “the circuit board shield forms a guide protrusion projecting upward from a surrounding surface of the circuit board shield; the connector shield forms a guide hole; and fixing the connector shield to the circuit board shield comprises aligning the guide hole with the guide protrusion so that the guide protrusion is accepted within the guide hole.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS TERRY MULARSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Imani Hayman can be reached at (571)270-5528. 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.
/R.T.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841