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, see Remarks and Amendments filed on 04 February 2026 with respect to Objections to Specifications, Drawings, and Claims are persuasive. Therefore, the Objections to Specifications, Drawings, and Claims are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks and Amendments, filed 04 February 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 14, 22, and 27, which were rejected under 35 USC § 102 and/or 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made using Fritz in view of Kang and/or Fritz in view of Chigullapalli and Kang. See rejections below for details.
In summary, this application is not placed in a condition for an allowance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
a. claims 27 and 36, and by extension, dependent claims 28, 33-35 recite “a first potion” of the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure. The term “first portion” cannot be found in the specifications. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner will treat the portion of element 72 that is below support frame 71 in Fig. 17 of the instant application to be the claimed first portion.
b. claims 28 and 34 recite “a second portion” of the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure. The term “second portion” cannot be found in the specifications. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner will treat the portion of element 72 that is above support frame 71 in Fig. 17 of the instant application to be the claimed second portion.
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 14, 18-21, 27-28, 33-34 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz (US 2017/0127523 A1) in view of Kang (US 2017/0330814 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Fritz teaches a reinforcement structure (Figs. 2A-2F), comprising:
a support frame (208);
an accommodation chamber (215), defined by the support frame and extending through a first surface (bottom surface of 208) of the support frame and a second surface (top surface of 208) of the support frame that are opposite to each other, wherein the accommodation chamber is configured to accommodate a chip package structure (206 & 209) disposed on a printed circuit board (201, ¶ [0022]), wherein a wall surface (inner walls of 208 in Fig. 2A) of the support frame that defines the accommodation chamber is an inner surface (vertical inner surface of 208 in Fig. 2F), and a wall surface (outer walls of 208 in Fig. 2A) of the support frame opposite to the inner surface is an outer surface (vertical outer surface of 208 in Fig. 2F); and
an electromagnetic radiation suppression structure (213 & 204 & 207; see ¶ [0062], ¶ [0060]) disposed on the first surface, the second surface, the inner surface, or the outer surface (213 is on top of the top surface of 208 and 204 & 207 is below the bottom surface of 208), wherein a concave cavity (Fig. 2F: the cavity of 208 that is occupied by the right-most 204; note: although the plain meaning of concave requires a rounded hollowed-out structure, cavity of 208 corresponds to the same shape as the concave cavity 10 of the support frame 71 as illustrated in Fig. 18 of the instant application) is disposed in a partial area (Fig. 2F: the surface area of the bottom surface of 208 that is directly contacting 204) of the first surface, the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure is arranged in the concave cavity (204 is in the cavity), and the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure in the concave cavity protrudes from the first surface (204 protrudes vertically downwards from the bottom surface of 208 bounded by the cavity).
Fritz further teaches the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure is abutting (plain meaning: touching) the outer surface (216) and first surface (bottom surface of 208) of the support frame. However, Fritz does not teach the electromagnetic radiation structure abutting the inner surface of the support frame.
Kang, in the same field of invention, teaches an electromagnetic radiation suppression structure (111&112A&112B; see Fig. 3 and ¶ [0055]) abutting the outer surface (outer surface of 110), the first surface (bottom surface of 110), second surface (top surface of 110), and the inner surface (inner surface of 110) of the support frame (110).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Kang into the device of Fritz to rearrange the position of the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure from abutting the outer surface of the support frame to having it abut the inner surface of the support frame. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Fritz in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of providing the same effect of shielding semiconductor components from electromagnetic waves (Kang ¶ [0055]).
Furthermore, the rearrangement of parts is not patentable since it does not modify the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.) See also MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (C).
Regarding claim 18, the reinforcement structure according to claim 14, wherein the support frame is made of a metal material (Fritz ¶ [0055]).
Regarding claim 19, the reinforcement structure according to claim 14, wherein the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure comprises a shield layer (213, see Fritz Fig. 2) made of an electromagnetic shielding material (¶ [0062]- ¶ [0063]: copper, gold, etc.).
Regarding claim 20, Fritz et al. teach the reinforcement structure according to claim 14, but do not explicitly teach: wherein the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure comprise a wave-absorbing layer made of wave-absorbing material.
Fritz, through another embodiment (Fig. 4), teaches a reinforcement structure wherein the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure comprises a wave-absorbing layer (418) made of an electromagnetic wave-absorbing material (¶ [0104]: “frame vias 418 are separated from each other by a distance that is significantly smaller than the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation desirably shielded,” emphasis added).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of another embodiment of Fritz into the device of Fritz et al. to use a wave-absorbing material in the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Fritz et al. in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of enhancing the shielding characteristics of the reinforcement structure (Fritz ¶ [0104] ), with the ordinary skilled artisan noting that electromagnetic radiation are primarily composed of waves. Hence, the ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to suppress specific wavelengths that is primarily emitted by the interference source, while allow other wavelengths to pass through. See also MPEP § 2144.02: reliance on scientific theory.
Regarding claim 21, the reinforcement structure according to claim 20, wherein the wave-absorbing layer is adhered to the support frame by a bonding layer; or the electromagnetic wave-absorbing material is directly disposed (Fritz ¶ [0094]: “The frame element 408 also comprises a plurality of frame vias 418 disposed in the outer wall 416, or the interior walls 417, or both”) on the support frame to form the wave-absorbing layer.
Regarding claim 27, Fritz teaches a reinforcement structure (Figs. 2A-2F), comprising:
a support frame (208) configured to be attached to a printed circuit board (201, ¶ [0049]);
an accommodation chamber (215), defined by the support frame and extending through the support frame, wherein the accommodation chamber is configured to accommodate a chip package structure (206 & 209) attached to the printed circuit board; and
an electromagnetic radiation suppression structure (213 & 204 & 207; see ¶ [0062], ¶ [0060]), wherein a concave cavity (Fig. 2F: the cavity of 208 that is occupied by the right-most 204; note: although the plain meaning of concave requires a rounded hollowed-out structure, cavity of 208 corresponds to the same shape as the concave cavity 10 of the support frame 71 as illustrated in Fig. 18 of the instant application) is disposed in a partial area (Fig. 2F: the surface area of the bottom surface of 208 that is directly contacting 204) of a bottom surface (bottom surface of 208) of the support frame, a first portion (204) of the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure is arranged in the concave cavity, and wherein the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure comprises a shield layer (213) made of an electromagnetic shielding material (¶ [0062]- ¶ [0063]: copper, gold, etc.) or a wave-absorbing layer made of an electromagnetic wave-absorbing material.
Fritz further teaches the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure (portion of 204) abutting an outer side surface (216) and the bottom surface (bottom surface of 208) of the support frame. However, Fritz does not teach: electromagnetic radiation suppression structure is arranged in the concave cavity abutting a side surface of the support frame that defines the accommodation chamber.
Kang, in the same field of invention, teaches an electromagnetic radiation suppression structure (111&112A&112B; see Fig. 3 and ¶ [0055]) abutting the outer side surface (outer surface of 110), a top surface (top surface of 110), a bottom surface (bottom surface of 110), and a side surface (inner surface of 110) of the support frame (110) that defines the accommodation chamber (space occupied by 120).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Kang into the device of Fritz to rearrange the position of the electromagnetic radiation suppression from abutting the outer side surface of the support frame to having it abut the inner surface of the support frame. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Fritz in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of providing the same effect of shielding semiconductor components from electromagnetic waves (Kang ¶ [0055]).
Furthermore, the rearrangement of parts is not patentable since it does not modify the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.) See also MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (C).
Regarding claim 28, the reinforcement structure of claim 27, wherein a second portion (112A, see Kang Fig. 3) of the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure is disposed on a top surface (top surface of 110) of the support frame when the support frame is attached to the printed circuit board (Fritz Fig. 2F shows PCB 201 attached).
Note: As written in the rejection of claim 27, a person of ordinary skill would find it obvious to add additional layers around the support frame, such as metal layer (112A) of Kang, in order to suppress electromagnetic radiation.
Regarding claim 33, the reinforcement structure of claim 27, wherein the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure (204, see Fritz Fig. 2F) is disposed on the bottom surface (bottom surface) of the support frame (208) when the support frame is attached to the printed circuit board (Fritz Fig. 2F shows bottom surface of 208 attached to PCB 201).
Regarding claim 34, the reinforcement structure of claim 28, wherein the second portion of the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure has a same width as the support frame in a cross-sectional view (Kang Fig. 3 shows 112A having the same width as support frame 110).
Regarding claim 40, the reinforced structure according to claim 14, the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure (112A&111&112B, see Kang Fig. 3) in the concave cavity extends lower than support frame (110; Kang Fig. 3 shows 112B lower than 110).
Claim 22 and 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz (US 2017/0127523 A1) in view of Chigullapalli (US 2019/0074252 A1) and Kang (US 2017/0330814 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Fritz teaches an electronic device (Figs. 2A-2F), comprising:
a printed circuit board (201, ¶ [0022]);
a chip package structure (206 & 209) on the printed circuit board;
a reinforcement structure (208 & 215 & 213 & 204 & 207 comprising
a support frame (208);
an accommodation chamber (215), defined by the support frame and extending through a first surface (bottom surface of 208) of the support frame and a second surface (top surface of 208) of the support frame that are opposite to each other, wherein the accommodation chamber configured to accommodate the chip package structure, wherein a wall surface (inner walls of 208 in Fig. 2A) of the support frame that defines the accommodation chamber is an inner surface (vertical inner surface of 208 in Fig. 2F), and a wall surface (outer walls of 208in Fig. 2A) of the support frame opposite to the inner surface is an outer surface (vertical outer surface of 208 in Fig. 2F); and
an electromagnetic radiation suppression structure (213 & 204 & 207; see ¶ [0062], ¶ [0060], ¶ [0057]) disposed on the first surface, the second surface, the inner surface, or the outer surface (213 is on top of the top surface of 208; 204 & 207 is below the bottom surface of 208), wherein the chip package structure and the reinforcement structure are disposed on a same surface (top surface of 201) of the printed circuit board; wherein a concave cavity (Fritz Fig. 2F: the cavity of 208 that is occupied by the right-most 204; note: although the plain meaning of concave requires a rounded hollowed-out structure, cavity of 208 corresponds to the same shape as the concave cavity 10 of the support frame 71 as illustrated in Fig. 18 of the instant application) is disposed in a partial area (Fig. 2F: the surface area of the bottom surface of 208 that is directly contacting 204) of the first surface, the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure is arranged in the concave cavity (204 is in the cavity), and the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure in the concave cavity protrudes from the first surface (204 protrudes vertically downwards from the bottom surface of 208 that contacts 204).
However, Fritz does not the device comprising a heat sink covering a side of the chip package structure opposite to the printed circuit board.
Chigullapalli, in the same field of invention, teaches an electronic device (200, see Fig. 2) comprising a heat sink (130) covering a side (top side of 110 & 210) of the chip package structure (110 & 210) opposite to the printed circuit board (102 or 202; see ¶ [0026], ¶ [0027]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Chigullapalli into the device of Choi to provide a heat sink coverage a side of the chip package structure opposite to the printed circuit board. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Choi in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of improving the heat dissipation of the electronic device (Chigullapalli ¶ [0002]).
Fritz further teaches the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure is abutting (plain meaning: touches) the outer surface (216, see Fig. 2F) and first surface (bottom surface of 208) of the support frame. However, Fritz does not teach the electromagnetic radiation structure abutting the inner surface of the support frame that defines the accommodation chamber.
Kang, in the same field of invention, teaches an electromagnetic radiation suppression structure (111&112A&112B; see Fig. 3 and ¶ [0055]) abutting the outer surface (outer surface of 110), the first surface (bottom surface of 110), second surface (top surface of 110), and the inner surface (inner surface of 110) of the support frame (110) that defines the accommodation chamber (space occupied by 120).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Kang into the device of Fritz to rearrange the position of the electromagnetic radiation suppression from abutting the outer surface of the support frame to having it abut the inner surface of the support frame, with the inner surface defining the accommodation chamber. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Fritz in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of providing the same effect of shielding semiconductor components from electromagnetic waves (Kang ¶ [0055]).
Furthermore, the rearrangement of parts is not patentable since it does not modify the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.) See also MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (C).
Regarding claim 26, the electronic device according to claim 22, wherein a surface (bottom surface of 208 & 215 & 213 & 204 & 207 in Fritz Fig. 2F) of the reinforcement structure facing the printed circuit board (201) abuts against the printed circuit board (bottom surfaces of 208&204&215 contacts upper surface of 201), and a surface (top surface of 213) of the reinforcement structure facing the heat sink (130, see Chigullapalli Fig. 2) abuts against the heat sink (Fritz in view of Chigullapalli teaches the heat sink above the top surface of 213), so that the chip package structure is located in a closed cavity (Chigullapalli Fig. 2 shows a cavity under the heat sink and defined by sidewalls 120, the heat sink 130, and the PCB 102) defined by the reinforcement structure, the heat sink, and the printed circuit board.
Claim 24, 37 and 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz (US 2017/0127523 A1) and in view of Chigullapalli (US 2019/0074252 A1) and Kang (US 2017/0330814 A1) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Kawabata (US 2011/0317386 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Fritz et al. teach the electronic device according to claim 22, wherein the first surface (bottom surface of 208, see Fritz Fig. 2F) faces the printed circuit board (201). However, Fritz et al. do not teach: an insulation layer is disposed between the printed circuit board and an area of the first surface that is not part of the concave cavity.
Kawabata, in the same field of invention, teaches an electronic device comprising an insulation layer (Fig. 7A: air gap below layer 32 next to G; air gaps are known in the art to be insulating) is disposed between the printed circuit board (10) and an area (bottom surface of 32 exposed to air gap and not part of G; note that 32 is part of the grounding circuitry of the electromagnetic shielding, see ¶ [0024], ¶ [0058] ) of the first surface (bottom surface of 31) that is not part of the concave cavity (G).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Kawabata into the device of Fritz et al. to disposed an insulating layer between the printed circuit board and an area of the first surface that is not part of the concave cavity. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Fritz et al. in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of avoiding contact between terminals of the package that require no cross-talk between these terminals (Kawabata ¶ [0008], ¶ [0103]) and to prevent any cracks or exfoliation at the grounding terminal portion (33B, see ¶ [0105]), noting that Fritz teaches vias (207, see Fig. 2F) connected to metallization (204) as part of the grounding pathway (Fritz ¶ [0051]).
Regarding claim 37, the electronic device of claim 24, wherein the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure in the concave cavity (portion of 32 marked as “E” in Examiner Fig. 1; this is analogous to 204 of Fritz) abuts a side surface (X, which is the boundary of the air gap) of the insulation layer that faces the accommodation chamber (X is a side surface that faces the chamber S, with Y being the side opposite of X).
PNG
media_image1.png
580
1440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Fig. 1. Taken from Kawabata Figs. 2 and 7
Regarding claim 38, the electronic device of claim 24, wherein the insulation layer (air gap below layer 32 next to G in Kawabata Fig. 7A) insulates the support frame (31) from a metal wiring (122 in Fig. 8, ¶ [0003]) on a surface (top surface of 121) of the printed circuit board (10 in Fig. 7A; note: PCB illustrated as 121 in Fig. 8).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz (US 2017/0127523 A1) and in view of Chigullapalli (US 2019/0074252 A1) and Kang (US 2017/0330814 A1) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Nair (US 2019/0051615 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Fritz et al. teach the electronic device according to claim 22, but do not teach: wherein the support frame comprises a plurality of support subframes, the plurality of support subframes are arranged at intervals along a periphery of the chip package structure, and a spacing between two adjacent support subframes is a quarter of a wavelength corresponding to a frequency of an electromagnetic wave to be suppressed.
Nair, in the same field of invention, teaches a support frame comprising a plurality of support subframes (see Fig. 3C where 302 is made of sections; ¶ [0064] ), the plurality of support subframes are arranged at intervals (each section of 302 is cohesively arranged to form a box-like shape) along a periphery of the chip package structure (Fig. 3C, when viewed with Fig. 2, shows the intervals are found around the outer edges of 210), a spacing (space between each via 335) between two adjacent support subframe (vias are found in each subframe) corresponding to a frequency (¶ [0061]) of an electromagnetic wave (electromagnetic interference is caused by electromagnetic waves generated by electronic components as evidenced by Kang ¶ [0055]) to be suppressed.
Nair further teaches adjusting the spacing to depending on the maximum frequency of the operation of multiple harmonics (¶ [0061]). Hence, Fritz et al. in view of Nair teaches: the spacing to be a quarter of a wavelength.
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to separate the support frames into multiple support subframes, each arranged at a regular interval, with a spacing specifically adjusted to a quarter of a wavelength. The ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to modify Fritz et al. in order to suppress specific harmonics of the electromagnetic radiation (Nair ¶ [0061] ). Furthermore, the ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to routinely optimize the spacing between two adjacent support subframes, noting that each subframe contains vias that is used to suppress electromagnetic waves, to a quarter of the wavelength corresponding to the frequency of the electromagnetic wave to be suppressed. In other words, the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Fritz et al. in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of shielding the device to specific set of harmonics that comprises the electromagnetic interfering signal, thereby ingressing or egressing specific harmonics of the electromagnetic radiation (Nair ¶ [0061]).
Claims 35, 36 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz (US 2017/0127523 A1) in view of Kang (US 2017/0330814 A1) as applied to claims 14 and/or 27 above, and further in view of Kawabata (US 2011/0317386 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Fritz et al. teach the reinforcement structure of claim 27, but do not teach: wherein an insulation layer is disposed on an area of the bottom surface of the support frame that is not part of the concave cavity, and wherein the concave cavity is disposed between the insulation layer and the chip package structure when the support frame is attached to the printed circuit board.
Kawabata, in the same field of invention, teaches a device wherein an insulation layer (Fig. 7A: air gap below layer 32 next to G; air gaps are known in the art to be insulating) is disposed on an area (portion of 31 above air gap that is not above G) of the bottom surface (bottom surface of 31) of the support frame (31) that is not part of the concave cavity (G), and wherein the concave cavity (G in Fig. 7A) is disposed between the insulation layer (air gap) and the chip package structure (31) when the support frame is attached to the printed circuit board (10).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Kawabata into the device of Fritz et al. to add an insulation layer on the bottom surface of the support frame, with the insulating layer disposed below an area of the bottom surface of the support frame that is not the concave cavity, with the insulating layer in between the concave cavity and the printed circuit board. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Fritz et al. in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of avoiding contact between terminals of the package that require no cross-talk between these terminals (Kawabata ¶ [0008], ¶ [0103]) and to prevent any cracks or exfoliation at the grounding terminal portion (33B, see ¶ [0105]), with the ordinary skilled artisan noting that Fritz teaches terminals (via 207, see Fig. 2F) connected to metallization (204) as part of the grounding pathway (Fritz ¶ [0051]).
Regarding claim 36, the reinforcement structure of claim 35, wherein the first portion (lower portion of 32 in Kawabata Fig. 7A is analogous to 204 of Fritz) of the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure abuts against the insulation layer (Kawabata Fig. 7A shows the air gap abuts 32)
Regarding claim 39, Fritz et al. teach the reinforcement structure according to claim 14, but do not teach: wherein an insulation layer is disposed on an area of the first surface of the support frame that is not part of the concave cavity, wherein the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure in the concave cavity abuts a side surface of the insulation layer that faces the accommodation chamber.
Kawabata, in the same field of invention, teaches a device wherein an insulation layer (Fig. 7A: air gap below layer 32 next to G; air gaps are known in the art to be insulating) is disposed on an area (portions of 31 not part of G) of the first surface (bottom surface of 31) of the support frame (31) that is not part of the concave cavity, wherein the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure (lower portion of 32, which is analogous to 204 of Fritz) in the concave cavity abuts a side surface (X; see Examiner Fig. 1 in claim 37 rejection above) of the insulation layer that faces the accommodation chamber (as shown in Examiner Fig. 1, X is a side surface that faces accommodation chamber S, whereas Y is the side surface that faces the opposite direction).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Kawabata into the device of Fritz et al. to add an insulating layer on an area of the first surface of the support frame that is not part of the concave cavity, wherein the electromagnetic radiation suppression structure in the concave cavity abuts a side surface of the insulation layer that faces the accommodation chamber. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Fritz et al. in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of avoiding contact between terminals of the package that require no cross-talk between these terminals (Kawabata ¶ [0008], ¶ [0103]) and to prevent any cracks or exfoliation at the grounding terminal portion (33B, see ¶ [0105]), with the ordinary skilled artisan noting that Fritz teaches terminals (via 207, see Fig. 2F) connected to metallization (204) as part of the grounding pathway (Fritz ¶ [0051]).
Conclusion
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.
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, Zandra Smith can be reached at (571) 272-2429. 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.
/DOUGLAS YAP/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/ZANDRA V SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899