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 Amendment
The amendment filed September 23, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 5 have been amended. Claims 1-8 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 26, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed September 23, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered. Applicant argues that the second end of Won’s first arm does not include any protrusions protruding from the lateral face side of the board toward the surface thereof. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the protrusion of the first arm of Won does not protrude out over the top surface of the circuit board, like the protrusion of Won’s second arm, it does protrude out slightly from the side of the case, where the lateral face side of the board is disposed, and in the direction of the board’s surface.
Applicant also argues that the first arm of Won does not possess elasticity, thus distinguishing amended claim 1 from the teachings of Won. Examiner agrees that Won lacks a specific teaching that the first arm possesses elasticity. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the combined teaching of Won (KR 10-2012-0071708 A) and Koike et al. (US 6,785,146 B2).
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won (KR 10-2012-0071708 A), and further in view of Koike et al. (US 6,785,146 B2), hereinafter Koike.
Regarding claim 1, Won teaches an electronic component comprising:
a rectangular case (case 20) including a rectangular opening (see Fig. 2), the opening being covered with a board (printed circuit board 10);
a pair of first engaging parts arranged in opposition to each other at side surfaces of the case parallel to each other (see annotated Fig. 2 below); and
a pair of second engaging parts (hooks 30) each arranged adjacent to the pair of first engaging parts at each of the side surfaces of the case (see annotated Fig. 2 below), wherein
each of the pair of first engaging parts includes a first arm, the first arm includes a first end and a second end, the first end is provided at a part of the side surface of the case, and the second end includes a first protrusion protruded from the lateral face side of the board toward the surface thereof (see annotated Fig. 2 below),
each of the pair of second engaging parts includes a second arm, the second arm includes a third end and a fourth end, the third end is provided at a part of the side surface of the case, and the fourth end includes a second protrusion protruded from the lateral face side of the board toward the surface thereof (see annotated Fig. 3 below), and
a length of the second protrusion in a direction along the surface of the board is greater than a length of the first protrusion (see Fig. 2 showing the length of the protrusion on hooks 30 is greater than the length of the protrusion on the first engaging parts).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (direction along surface of board)]
PNG
media_image2.png
247
402
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
348
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Won lacks a specific teaching that the arm of each of the first and second engaging parts
has elasticity.
Koike teaches an electronic component comprising a rectangular case (case 10) with a rectangular opening (opening 18) covered with a board (circuit board 22). The board (22) is secured via engaging parts (fastening members 1) with arms (legs 1a) having elasticity (see col. 3, lines 58-59).
Won and Koike are considered to be analogous art 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 configure the arms of the first and second engaging parts taught by Won to have elasticity. Doing so would make it easier to attach the board to the case. Elasticity would also enable the arms to remain engaged with the board if the size of the board changes slightly due to changes in temperature (see Koike, col. 4 lines 37-42).
Regarding claim 2, Won in view of Koike teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Won in view of Koike further teaches a cover (Won: see Fig. 1) attached to the case (Won: 20) and covering the board (Won: 10), the first engaging parts (see annotated Fig. 2 above) and the second engaging parts (Won: 30).
Won lacks the specific teaching that if a distance between the pair of first protrusions opposing to each other is X, that a width of the board arranged between the pair of first engaging parts and between the pair of second engaging parts is Y, and that a distance between each of the first engaging part and the second engaging part and an inner surface of the cover is Z, a relationship among X, Y, and Z is the following formula: (Y-X)/2<Z.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make a distance between each of the engaging parts and an inner surface of the cover larger than half of Y-X since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3, Won in view of Koike teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Won in view of Koike further teaches the electronic component of claim 1, wherein the first arm possesses a first length and the second arm possesses a second length greater than the first length (Won: see Figs. 2 and 3 showing that the length of the arms of hooks 30 is greater than the length of the first arms).
Regarding claim 4, Won in view of Koike teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Won in view of Koike further teaches the electronic component of claim 1, wherein a position of a tip of the second protrusion is higher than a position of a tip of the first protrusion in a thickness direction of the board (Won: see Figs. 2 and 3 showing the topmost part of hook 30 is higher than the topmost part of the first protrusion).
Regarding claim 5, Won teaches an electronic component comprising:
a rectangular case (20) including a rectangular opening (see Fig. 2), the opening being covered with a board (10);
a first engaging part arranged on at least one of parallel side surfaces of the case (see annotated Fig. 2 above); and
a second engaging part (hook 30) arranged on at least one of the side surfaces of the case, the second engaging part being arranged adjacent to the first engaging part (see annotated Fig. 2 above), wherein
the first engaging part includes a first arm, the first arm includes a first end and a second end, the first end is provided at a part of the side surface of the case, and the second end includes a first protrusion protruded from the lateral face side of the board toward the surface thereof (see annotated Fig. 2 above),
the second engaging part includes a second arm, the second arm includes a third end and a fourth end, the third end is provided at a part of the side surface of the case, and the fourth end includes a second protrusion protruded from the lateral face side of the board toward the surface thereof (see annotated Fig. 3 above), and
a length of the second protrusion in a direction along the surface of the board is greater than a length of the first protrusion (see Fig. 2 showing the length of the protrusion on hook 30 is greater than the length of the protrusion on the first engaging part).
Won lacks a specific teaching that the arm of the first and second engaging parts has elasticity.
Koike teaches an electronic component comprising a rectangular case (case 10) with a rectangular opening (opening 18) covered with a board (circuit board 22). The board (22) is secured via engaging parts (fastening members 1) with arms (legs 1a) having elasticity (see col. 3, lines 58-59).
Won and Koike are considered to be analogous art 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 configure the arms of the first and second engaging parts taught by Won to have elasticity. Doing so would make it easier to attach the board to the case. Elasticity would also enable the arms to remain engaged with the board if the size of the board changes slightly due to changes in temperature (see Koike, col. 4 lines 37-42).
Regarding claim 6, Won in view of Koike teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 as
stated above. Won in view of Koike further teaches the electronic component of claim 5, further comprising a cover (Won: see Fig. 1) attached to the case (Won: 20) and covering the board (Won: 10), the first engaging part (see annotated Fig. 2 above) and the second engaging part (Won: 30), wherein a gap is provided between each of the first engaging part and the second engaging part and an inner surface of the cover (Won: see Fig. 1 showing a cover that attaches to case 20 and covers board 10 and the engaging parts).
Regarding claim 7, Won in view of Koike teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 as stated above. Won in view of Koike further teaches the electronic component of claim 5, wherein the first arm possesses a first length and the second arm possesses a second length greater than the first length (Won: see Figs. 2 and 3 showing that the length of the arm of hook 30 is greater than the length of the first arm).
Regarding claim 8, Won in view of Koike teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 as stated above. Won in view of Koike further teaches the electronic component of claim 5, wherein a position of a tip of the second protrusion is higher than a position of a tip of the first protrusion in a thickness direction of the board (Won: see Figs. 2 and 3 showing the topmost part of hook 30 is higher than the topmost part of the first protrusion).
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.
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