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 amendments & arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered and overcome the previous grounds of rejection. However, upon further consideration the amended claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-18, & 20 are rejected by Sahu et al., US20190004571 (hereinafter referred to as Sahu) and Albayrak et al., US6985366 (hereinafter referred to as Albayrak). Sahu teaches another embodiment, EMI shield 300, that would be obvious to combine with Albayrak for the integrally formed springs and gaps.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahu et al., US Application 20190004571 (hereinafter referred to as Sahu) and in view of Albayrak et al., US Patent 6985366 (hereinafter referred to as Albayrak).
In regards to claim 1, Sahu teaches an electrical system (device 200; [Fig. 2]), comprising: a printed circuit board (PCB 290; [Fig. 3]) comprising an electrical circuit (first package 201 or second package 202; [Fig. 2]) having electro-magnetic radio frequency emissions (electromagnetic (EMI); [0001]); and a shield (shield 300; [Fig. 3]) having a top portion (300a; [Fig. 3]) and a plurality of side portions (x4 of 300b; [Fig. 3 & 8]) connected to the top portion and surrounding the electrical circuit (implicit; [Fig. 3]); wherein the plurality of side portions comprises spring contacts (flexible or collapsible portion; [0052]) (Examiner’s Note: It is understood by the shape of the side portions 300b in Fig. 3 and the description of collapsible in [0052], the side portions are a long continuous spring contact.), wherein: each of the spring contacts is integrally formed with a respective side portion of the plurality of side portions (implicit by the same unbroken shading of 300; [Fig. 3b]), and each of the spring contacts comprise a compressed state (collapsible portion & zigzag pattern; [0052]) when contacting a reference circuit (solder 310 on PCB 290; [0100] & [Fig. 3]) of the printed circuit board ([0052], [0067], [0100]).
Sahu does not teach wherein the plurality of side portions comprises gaps, wherein one or more of the gaps is integrally formed in a respective side portion of the plurality of side portions and is disposed between consecutive spring contacts comprised among the spring contacts.
Albayrak teaches wherein the plurality of side portions comprises gaps (spaces in-between the spring contacts 14; [Fig. 1]), wherein one or more of the gaps is integrally formed in a respective side portion of the plurality of side portions (implicit on all 4 sides of the plurality of spring contacts 14; [Fig. 1]) and is disposed between consecutive spring contacts comprised among the spring contacts (implicit; [Fig. 1]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sahu in order to incorporate wherein the plurality of side portions comprises gaps, wherein one or more of the gaps is integrally formed in a respective side portion of the plurality of side portions and is disposed between consecutive spring contacts comprised among the spring contacts as taught by Albayrak. Sahu lends itself to being modified with gaps because of another taught embodiment of shield 500 which has spring contacts and gaps, but are not integrally formed with the shield 500. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent radio wavelength signals from leaking out of the shield.
In regards to claim 2, most of the limitations taught above in claim 1. Sahu does not explicitly disclose, but, Albayrak teaches wherein one or more of the gaps (separated from one another) comprises an approximate width (2-3mm) according to the following: w<λ/30wherein w comprises the approximate gap width and λ comprises a wavelength (frequency range) of electromagnetic radiation to be shielded ([Col. 4, Ln. 1-7]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the function taught by Albayrak to determine the width of the gap between the spring elements then apply it to Sahu’s shield. Applicant’s specification teaches the invention operating in a range of 1GHz to 100GHz. The gap width of 2mm as taught by Albayrak calculates to a frequency of 26.5GHz utilizing the applicant’s formula. Therefore, Albayrak anticipates the claimed formula because one of the examples falls within the applicant’s range of operating frequencies. The motivation for utilizing the function taught by Albayrak is to prevent radio wavelength signals from leaking out of the shield.
In regards to claim 3, most of the limitations taught above in claim 1. Sahu does not explicitly disclose, but, Albayrak teaches wherein one or more of the spring contacts (spring contacts width) comprises an approximate pitch (3-4mm) according to the following: d≠n(λ4)wherein d comprises an approximate pitch (grid size), n comprises an integer greater than zero (0), and λ comprises a wavelength (frequency range) of electromagnetic radiation to be shielded ([Col. 4, Ln. 1-7]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the function taught by Albayrak to determine the pitch for Sahu’s shield. Applicant’s specification teaches the invention operating in a range of 1GHz to 100GHz. The integer n is assumed to be 1. The pitch is taught to be 3mm by Albayrak and calculates to a wavelength of 12mm, utilizing the applicant’s formula. The frequency would be 25.0GHz which is within the range of applicant’s invention’s operating frequency range. Therefore, the pitch would work for frequencies from 1-24GHz and 26-100GHz. The motivation for utilizing the function taught by Albayrak is to prevent radio wavelength signals from impacting receiving and transmission of the signal.
In regards to claim 4, most of the limitations taught above in claim 1. In addition, Sahu teaches wherein the top portion comprises an opening (cavities) for allowing at least a portion of a thermal interface material (thermal interface material (TIM) 270) to extend therethrough and contact the electrical circuit ([0075] & [Fig. 5 & 11]). Paragraph [0075] is indicating various different implementations that are not necessarily shown in the figures. It is understood that the cavity of the shield would be an opening on the top. Therefore, the TIM would be exposed through the opening to the top of the device. The TIM is already in contact with the electrical circuit as shown in Fig. 5.
In regards to claim 5, most of the limitations taught above in claim 1. In addition, Sahu teaches wherein the top portion comprises a planar surface portion (flatness of top) ([Fig. 5 & 11]) for contacting at least a portion of a thermal interface material (thermal interface material (TIM) 270). The underside of the top portion of the shield is in contact with TIM 270 as shown in Fig. 5 & 11.
In regards to claim 9, most of the limitations taught above in claim 1. In addition, Sahu teaches wherein the shield comprises a metal material (metal) ([0073]).
Claim(s) 6-7, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahu et al., US Application 20190004571 (hereinafter referred to as Sahu) in view of Albayrak et al., US Patent 6985366 (hereinafter referred to as Albayrak) and in further view of Robinson et al., US Patent 7463496 (hereinafter referred to as Robinson).
In regards to claim 6, most of the limitations taught above in claim 1. Sahu & Albayrak do not explicitly disclose, but, Robinson teaches the electrical system further comprising a mask layer (spring clip 114; [Fig. 1]) having a conductive material (sheet metal; [Col. 8, Ln. 66 – Col. 9, Ln. 1]) and a cavity (space under spring clip 114; [Fig. 1]) comprising the shield (EMI gasket 104; [Fig. 1]) (shield 300, Sahu) and electrical circuit (component 116; [Fig. 1]) (package 201 or 202, Sahu).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a conductive mask layer by Robinson to house the circuit and shield taught by Sahu & Albayrak. The motivation for doing so is to protect the circuitry, to securely fasten the electrical circuit to the PCB, and have a commercially ready product.
In regards to claim 7, most of the limitations taught above in claim 1. In addition, Sahu teaches the electrical system further comprising: a thermal interface material (TIM 270) ([Fig. 11]) over the electrical circuit and extending through an opening (cavities) in the top portion of the shield ([0075-0076]).
Sahu & Albayrak do not teach the electrical system further comprising: a mask layer having a conductive material and a cavity comprising the shield and electrical circuit.
Robinson teaches the electrical system further comprising: a mask layer (spring clip 114; [Fig. 1]) having a conductive material (sheet metal; [Col. 8, Ln. 66 – Col. 9, Ln. 1]) and a cavity (space under spring clip 114; [Fig. 1]) comprising the shield (EMI gasket 104; [Fig. 1]) (shield 300, Sahu) and electrical circuit (component 116; [Fig. 1]) (package 201 or 202, Sahu).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a conductive mask layer by Robinson to house the circuit and shield taught by Sahu & Albayrak. The motivation for doing so is to protect the circuitry, to securely fasten the electrical circuit to the PCB, and have a commercially ready product.
In regards to claim 18, Sahu teaches a method of forming a shielded electrical circuit (device 200; [Fig. 2] & [0053]) comprising the steps of: providing a printed circuit board (PCB 290; [Fig. 3]) having a circuit (first package 201 or second package 202; [Fig. 2]) that generates electro-magnetic radio frequency emissions (electromagnetic (EMI); [0001] & [0040]); placing a metal (metal; [0073]) shield (shield 300; [Fig. 3]) on the printed circuit board (stage 4; [Fig. 21B]), the metal shield having a top portion (300a; [Fig. 3]) and a plurality of side portions (x4 of sides where 300b is located; [Fig. 3 & 8]) connected to the top portion and surrounding the circuit (implicit; [Fig. 3]), wherein: the plurality of side portions comprise spring elements (300b; [Fig. 3]); each of the spring elements is integrally formed with a respective side portion of the plurality of side portions (implicit because of the unbroken shading of shield 300 shown in Fig. 3); and wherein placing the metal shield on the printed circuit board comprises steps of compressing (under a load; [Fig. 21B] & [0052]) the spring elements of the metal shield thereby placing one or more of the spring elements in contact with an electrical reference circuit (solder 310 on PCB 290; [Fig. 3]) of the printed circuit board (stage 6; [Fig. 21B]), and wherein compressing the spring elements comprises bending (zig zag pattern; [0052]) the spring elements(stage 6; [Fig. 21B]).
Sahu does not teach wherein the plurality of side portions comprise gaps; one or more of the gaps is integrally formed in a respective portion of the plurality of side portions and is disposed between consecutive spring elements comprised among the spring elements; and securing the metal shield on the printed circuit board by placing the metal shield within a cavity of a conductive mask layer of the printed circuit board.
Albayrak teaches wherein the plurality of side portions comprises gaps (spaces in-between the spring contacts 14; [Fig. 1]), wherein one or more of the gaps is integrally formed in a respective side portion of the plurality of side portions (implicit on all 4 sides of the plurality of spring contacts 14; [Fig. 1]) and is disposed between consecutive spring contacts comprised among the spring contacts (implicit; [Fig. 1]).
Albayrak does not teach the step of securing the metal shield on the printed circuit board by placing the metal shield within a cavity of a conductive mask layer of the printed circuit board.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sahu in order to incorporate wherein the plurality of side portions comprises gaps, wherein one or more of the gaps is integrally formed in a respective side portion of the plurality of side portions and is disposed between consecutive spring contacts comprised among the spring contacts as taught by Albayrak. Sahu lends itself to being modified with gaps because of another taught embodiment of shield 500 which has spring contacts and gaps, but are not integrally formed with the shield 500. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent radio wavelength signals from leaking out of the shield.
Robinson teaches the step of securing the metal shield (EMI gasket 104; [Fig. 1]) (shield 300, Sahu) on the printed circuit board (board 120; [Fig. 1]) (PCB 290, Sahu) by placing the metal shield within a cavity (implied space under spring clip 114; [Fig. 1]) of a conductive mask layer (spring clip 114; [Fig. 1]) of the printed circuit board.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sahu & Albayrak in order to incorporate the step of securing the metal shield on the printed circuit board by placing the metal shield within a cavity of a conductive mask layer of the printed circuit board as taught by Robinson. The motivation for doing so would be to securely fasten the electrical circuit to the PCB.
In regards to claim 20, most of the limitations taught above in claim 18. Sahu & Albayrak do not explicitly disclose, but, Robinson teaches the method further comprising a step of placing a thermal interface material (thermal interface 111; [Fig. 1) between the circuit (component 116; [Fig. 1]) (package 201 or 202, Sahu) and the mask layer (spring clip 114; [Fig. 1]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the thermal interface material between the circuit and the mask layer as taught by Robinson to Sahu & Albayrak’s method of shielding an electrical circuit. The thermal interface material can also be understood as the TIM 270 taught by Sahu. The motivation for doing so is to protect the circuitry, securely fasten the electrical circuit to the PCB, and have a commercially ready product.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahu et al., US Application 20190004571 (hereinafter referred to as Sahu) in view of Albayrak et al., US Patent 6985366 (hereinafter referred to as Albayrak) and in further view of Creasy et al., US Application 20070011693 (hereinafter referred to as Creasy).
In regards to claim 10, most of the limitations taught above in claim 1. Sahu does not explicitly disclose, but, Creasy teaches wherein the shield (EMI shield) comprises a body (core member) having a conductive coating (electrically conductive layer) ([0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the metal shield of Sahu & Albayrak with the metallic material taught by Creasy. The motivation for doing so would be an engineering design choice.
Claim(s) 11-13 & 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahu et al., US Application 20190004571 (hereinafter referred to as Sahu) in view of Albayrak et al., US Patent 6985366 (hereinafter referred to as Albayrak) and in further view of Mann et al., US Application 20230059342 (hereinafter referred to as Mann).
In regards to claim 11, Sahu teaches a system (device 200; [Fig. 2]), comprising: a printed circuit board (PCB 290; [Fig. 3]) comprising a circuit (first package 201 or second package 202; [Fig. 2]) having electro-magnetic radio frequency emissions (electromagnetic (EMI); [0001]); a metal (metal; [0073]) shield (shield 300; [Fig. 3]) having a top portion (300a; [Fig. 3]) and a perimeter (x4 of 300b; [Fig. 3 & 8]) connected to the top portion and at least partially surrounding the circuit (implicit; [Fig. 3]); the perimeter comprises one or more spring elements (flexible or collapsible portion; [0052]) (Examiner’s Note: It is understood by the shape of the side portions 300b in Fig. 3 and the description of collapsible in [0052], the side portions are a long continuous spring contact.), wherein: each of the spring elements is integrally formed with a respective portion of perimeter (implicit by the same unbroken shading of 300; [Fig. 3b]); and each of the spring elements comprise a bent position (collapsible portion & zigzag pattern; [0052]) when contacting a reference circuit (solder 310 on PCB 290; [0100] & [Fig. 3]) of the printed circuit board ([0052], [0067], [0100]).
Sahu does not teach the system as a radar system with a radar circuit; wherein one or more of the gaps is integrally formed in a respective portion of the perimeter and is disposed between consecutive spring elements comprised among the spring elements.
Albayrak teaches wherein one or more of the gaps (spaces in-between the spring contacts 14; [Fig. 1]) is integrally formed in a respective portion of the perimeter (implicit on all 4 sides of the plurality of spring contacts 14; [Fig. 1]) and is disposed between consecutive spring elements comprised among the spring elements (implicit; [Fig. 1]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sahu in order to incorporate wherein one or more of the gaps is integrally formed in a respective portion of the perimeter and is disposed between consecutive spring elements comprised among the spring elements as taught by Albayrak. Sahu lends itself to being modified with gaps because of another taught embodiment of shield 500 which has spring contacts and gaps, but are not integrally formed with the shield 500. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent radio wavelength signals from leaking out of the shield.
Albayrak does not teach the system as a radar system with a radar circuit.
Mann teaches a radar system (radar system 100), comprising: a radar circuit (MMICs) ([0025] & [Fig. 1]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Sahu & Albayrak’s system to Mann’s radar application. The MMIC is a radar circuit because it includes RX & TX antennas operating at 50GHz. The motivation for doing so is to utilize a known RF interference protective shield to the radar system.
In regards to claim 12, most of the limitations taught above in claim 11. In addition, Sahu teaches wherein the spring elements comprise at least one continuous spring element (portion 300b) ([Fig. 3]). One could modify the embodiment of Fig. 5 to have at least one of the sides like the embodiment taught in Fig. 3.
In regards to claim 13, Sahu does not teach wherein the consecutive spring elements are divided by the one or more of the gaps.
Albayrak teaches wherein the consecutive spring elements (spring contacts 14; [Fig. 1]) are divided by the one or more of the gaps (implicit; [Fig. 1]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sahu in order to incorporate wherein the consecutive spring elements are divided by the one or more of the gaps as taught by Albayrak. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent radio wavelength signals from leaking out of the shield.
In regards to claim 15, most of the limitations taught above in claim 11. In addition, Sahu teaches wherein the top portion comprises a rectangular shape (square) and includes a rectangular opening (cavities) therein ([0075] & [Fig. 11]). Paragraph [0075] is indicating various different implementations that are not necessarily shown in the figures. It is understood that the cavity of the shield would be an opening on the top. Also, it is understood that the shape of the opening would match the shape of the device. So, the opening would have a square shape (a subset of rectangular shapes).
In regards to claim 16, most of the limitations taught above in claim 11. Sahu and Mann do not explicitly disclose, but, Albayrak teaches wherein the gap (separated from one another) comprises an approximate width (2-3mm) according to the following: w<λ/30wherein w comprises the approximate gap width and λ comprises a wavelength (frequency range) of electromagnetic radiation to be shielded ([Col. 4, Ln. 1-7]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the function taught by Albayrak to determine the width of the gap between the spring elements then apply it to Sahu and Mann’s shield. Applicant’s specification teaches the invention operating in a range of 1GHz to 100GHz. The gap width of 2mm as taught by Albayrak calculates to a frequency of 26.5GHz utilizing the applicant’s formula. Therefore, Albayrak anticipates the claimed formula because one of the examples falls within the applicant’s range of operating frequencies. The motivation for utilizing the function taught by Albayrak is to prevent radio wavelength signals from leaking out of the shield.
In regards to claim 17, Sahu does not teach wherein one or more of the spring elements comprises an approximate pitch according to the following: d≠n(λ4)wherein d comprises an approximate pitch, n comprises an integer greater than zero (0), and λ comprises a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation to be shielded.
Albayrak teaches wherein one or more of the spring elements (spring contacts width) comprises an approximate pitch (3-4mm) according to the following: d≠n(λ4)wherein d comprises an approximate pitch (grid size), n comprises an integer greater than zero (0), and λ comprises a wavelength (frequency range) of electromagnetic radiation to be shielded ([Col. 4, Ln. 1-7]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the function taught by Albayrak to determine the pitch for Sahu’s shield. Applicant’s specification teaches the invention operating in a range of 1GHz to 100GHz. The integer n is assumed to be 1. The pitch is taught to be 3mm by Albayrak and calculates to a wavelength of 12mm, utilizing the applicant’s formula. The frequency would be 25.0GHz which is within the range of applicant’s invention’s operating frequency range. Therefore, the pitch would work for frequencies from 1-24GHz and 26-100GHz. The motivation for utilizing the function taught by Albayrak is to prevent radio wavelength signals from impacting receiving and transmission of the signal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 14, and 19 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 closest prior arts are Sahu et al., US20190004571, Albayrak et al., US6985366, Stellman et al., US20170052575, and Robinson et al., US7463496.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAMANTHA L FAUBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-1311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 5PM.
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, Crystal Hammond can be reached at 5712701682. 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.
SAMANTHA LYNETTE FAUBERT
Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838