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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 13 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is relied on a newly applied reference Wanner et al. U.S. Patent 11,337,300 to address the newly added limitation(s). See below rejection.
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 1-6 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hood, III et al. U.S. Patent 6,049,469 (hereinafter D1) in view of Wanner et al. U.S. Patent 11,337,300 (hereinafter D2).
PNG
media_image1.png
326
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, D1 teaches an apparatus (301; figure 3) comprising:
a circuit board (305; figure 3), the circuit board having connected thereto an active component (see above annotated figure 3);
a heatsink (313; figure 3) positioned above the active component;
a shield can (303; figure 3) positioned on the circuit board (305) at least partially around (see above figure 3) the active component,
a set of grounding springs (325; figure 3), the set of grounding springs positioned (see above figure 3) in relation to a top portion (312; figure 3) of the shield can, the set of grounding springs made out of one (implicitly taught) or multiple pieces of material.
However, D1 does not teach a top portion of the shield can (303) is positioned between the active component and the heatsink (313).
D2 teaches a similar structure (20; figure 3a), which comprises a shield can (22 + 32; figure 3a) positioned between an active component (12; figure 3a) and a heatsink (48; figure 3a).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of D1 to have a top portion of the shield can (303) to be positioned between the active component and the heatsink, as suggested by D2, to facilitate heat dissipating out of said shield can.
However, D1 does not specifically teach a thermally conductive material positioned between the active component and the heatsink (313).
D2 further suggests a thermally conductive material (50; figure 3a) positioned between the active component (12; figure 3a) and the heatsink (48; figure 3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further provide a thermally conductive material positioned between the active component and the heatsink of D1, as suggested by D2, to more effectively enhance heat transferring between said active component to said heatsink.
PNG
media_image2.png
222
647
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
326
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
From above figure 3 of D1, it is clear that as resulted from the modification by D2, the heatsink (313) would be positioned above the top portion (312) toward right end of grounding spring (325). Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further have a proximate end (right end of 325) of each grounding spring connecting to the heatsink, wherein a portion of a curvature (curvature of right end of 325) of each grounding spring is touching a bottom portion of the heatsink for further facilitating heat dissipating/grounding purpose.
Regarding claim 2, the modification of D1 in view of D2 would result in the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the shield can comprises at least one hole (see figure 3 of D2; hole formed by left and right 124) on the top portion, wherein the at least one hole enables thermal conductivity (through heatsink 313; figure 3 of D1) within the apparatus.
Regarding claim 3, the modification of D1 in view of D2. teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the connection between the shield can (303; figure 3) and the heatsink (313; figure 3) via the grounding springs (325; figure 3) enables (implicitly taught in figure 3) a reduction of noise emanating from the active component.
Regarding claim 4, the modification of D1 in view of D2 teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the set of grounding springs (325; figure 3 of D1) are connected to the shield can via soldering (implicitly taught in figure 3 and column 6, lines 25-33 of D1) or welding.
Regarding claim 5, as mentioned above, D1 in view of D2 teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Even though, D1 in view of D2 does not specifically teach that the set of grounding springs and shield can are formed from a same material, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to choose the same material for said grounding springs and shield can, 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, for optimal heat spreading/dissipation. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 6, the modification of D1 in view of D2 teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the set of grounding springs are a type selected from a group consisting of: wing-spring, M-spring, S-spring, C-spring (see figure 3 of D1), Tilt-spring, spring wave and U-spring.
Regarding claim 8, the modification of D1 in view of D2 teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus comprises a plurality of active components (320 and 321; in addition to the component in the above annotated figure 3 of D1).
Regarding claims 9-10, the modification of D1 in view of D2 teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the active component comprises at least one of a radio, an antenna, an amplifier, module, switch, chip (see column 8, lines 18-24; “…integrated circuit and other components”) and/or memory. Claim 10 is not applicable because a radio is not selected in the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, the modification of D1 in view of D2 teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the circuit board is a printed circuit board (PCB) (see column 7, lines 47-65 of D1).
Regarding claim 12, the modification of D1 in view of D2 teaches the apparatus of claim, 1, wherein the apparatus is an electronic device (see figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
326
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, D1 teaches an apparatus comprising:
a circuit board (305; figure 30, the circuit board having connected thereto an active component (see above annotated figure 3);
a heatsink (313; figure 3) positioned above the active component;
a shield can (303; figure 3) positioned on the circuit board (305) at least partially around (see above figure 3) the active component, the shield can comprising a grounding spring (325; figure 3, wherein a proximate end (lower end of 325) of the shield can connects to the circuit board.
Even though, D1 does not specifically teach the grounding spring and shield can made out of one piece of material, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make said grounding spring and shied can out of one piece of material, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formally been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
However, D1 does not teach a thermally conductive material positioned between the active component and the heatsink (313).
D2 further suggests a thermally conductive material (50; figure 3a) positioned between the active component (12; figure 3a) and the heatsink (48; figure 3a).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further provide a thermally conductive material positioned between the active component and the heatsink of D1, as suggested by D2, to more effectively enhance heat transferring between said active component to said heatsink.
Even though, D1 does not specifically teach the shield can and the grounding spring are connected as a single piece, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form said shield can and said grounding spring as a single piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formally been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art, to reduce assembly. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
PNG
media_image2.png
222
647
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
326
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
From above figure 3 of D1, it is clear that as resulted from the modification by D2, the heatsink (313) would be positioned above the top portion (312) toward right end of grounding spring (325). Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further have a proximate end (left end of 325) of each grounding spring connecting to the heatsink, wherein a distal end (right end of 325) of the grounding spring is touching a bottom portion of the heatsink to enable grounding of the shield can to the heatsink, wherein the heatsink does not protrude through a hole in the shield can, for further facilitating heat dissipating/grounding purpose.
wherein a distal end (upper end of 325) of the grounding spring is touching a bottom portion of the heatsink to enable grounding of the shield can to the heatsink, wherein the heatsink does not protrude through a hole in the shield can
Regarding claim 14, D1 in view of D2 teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the grounding spring comprises a Spring Wave grounding spring (see figure 3 of D1).
PNG
media_image1.png
326
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, D1/D2 teaches the electronic device of claim 15 for the same reasons stated in the above rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, D1 in view of D2 teaches the electronic device of claim 15, wherein the shield can comprises at least one hole (formed by left and right 124; figure 3 of D2 as resulted from the modification) on the top portion, wherein the at least one hole enables thermal conductivity within the apparatus.
Regarding claim 17, the modification of D1 in view of D2 teaches the electronic device of claim 15, wherein the connection between the shield can and the heatsink via the grounding springs enables (implicitly taught; see figure 3) a reduction of noise emanating from the active component.
Regarding claim 18, as mentioned above, D1 in view of D2 teaches the apparatus of claim 15.
Even though, D1 does not specifically teach that the set of grounding springs and shield can are formed from a same material, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to choose the same material for said grounding springs and shield can, 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, for optimal heat spreading/dissipation. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 19, the modification of D1 in view of D2 teaches the electronic device of claim 15, wherein the set of grounding springs are a type selected from a group consisting of: wing-spring, M-spring, S-spring, C-spring, Tilt-spring, spring wave (see figure 3 of D1) and U-spring.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of Wanner et al. U.S. Patent 11,337,300 (hereinafter D2) and in further view of Onoue U.S. Patent 6,388,189 (hereinafter D3).
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned above, D1 in view of D2 teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
However, D1 in view of D2 does not specifically teach wherein the set of grounding springs are associated with a spring clip, the spring clip encapsulating the circuit board.
D3, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an electronic apparatus, having a shield case (12a; figure 4), comprising a set of grounding springs (12a1 + 12; figure 5) associated a spring clip (12a1; figure 5), the spring clips encapsulate the circuit board.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the grounding spring of the electronic apparatus of D1 in view of D2, such that the set of grounding springs would be associated with a spring clip, the spring clip encapsulating the circuit board, as suggested by D3, to be stably coupled to the circuit board and also establish grounding with said circuit board.
Regarding claim 20, D1 in view of D2 and D3 teaches the electronic device of claim 20 for the same reason stated in the above rejection of claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6PM..
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 N 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.
/HUNG Q DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights