DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
1. Claims 1, 4-5, 11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salmon et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0407927 A1 (the ‘927 reference, now of record).
Referring to claim 1, the reference discloses an apparatus comprising:
a shield can (generally indicated at 1428) that is configured to reduce electromagnetic interference between components (206, Fig. 2B, 14G, para [33] (paragraph(s) [0033])) that are inside the shield can and components (such as wireless device of Network 1724 (~1724), Fig. 17, para [73] and para [4): “The EMI shield can also protect the electrical component from environmental external EMI emitted by other components in close proximity”) that are outside the shield can, the shield can comprising shield can walls (vertical portions of conductive layer 1428, para [61]) and a shield can lid (1422, para [59]);
a physical processor (1704, Fig. 17, including an MCM as MCM 1401 (para [5, 59]]) in Fig. 14G, para [72]), disposed within the shield can (~1428), comprising a first region (region including a portion of SMD 206 (para [23])) and a second region (region not including said portion of SMD 206); and
one or more spacer pads (conformal coating 228, para [35], see also Fig. 2B), disposed between and in contact with the shield can (~1428) and the first region, and not in contact with the second region.
Referring to claim 11 and using the same reference characters, interpretations, and citations as detailed above for claim 1 where applicable, the reference discloses a system comprising:
a shield can (~1428) that is configured to reduce electromagnetic interference between components that are inside the shield can and components (~1724) that are outside the shield can, the shield can comprising shield can walls (vertical portions of 1428) and a shield can lid (1422);
a physical memory (1714, Fig. 17), disposed outside of the shield can (~1428 (that houses physical processor 1704));
a radio transmission component (wireless device of Network 1724 (~1724)), disposed outside of the shield can (~1428);
a physical processor (1704, Fig. 17, including an MCM as MCM 1401 (para [5, 59]]) in Fig. 14G, para [72]), disposed within the shield can (~1428) and communicatively coupled to the physical memory (1714) and the radio transmission component (~1724), the physical processor comprising a first region (region including a portion of SMD 206 (para [23])) and a second region; and
one or more spacer pads (228), disposed between and in contact with the shield can and the first region, and not in contact with the second region.
Referring to claims 4, 5, 14 and 15, the reference further discloses that the one or more spacer pads (228) induces capacitive coupling to the SMD 206 (para [35]), implying that the one or more spacer pads comprise an electrically conductive material; and as such, implying that the one or more spacer pads (electrically conductive material 228) comprises one or more thermal transfer pads as claimed in claims 4 and 14 and that the one or more spacer pads (228) comprises one or more radio-frequency absorber pads as claimed in claims 5 and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
2. Claims 6, 8, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Salmon et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0407927 A1 (the ‘927 reference, now of record).
Referring to claims 6 and 16, although the reference does not specifically disclose dimensions as claimed, the claimed dimensions (the one or more spacer pads are in contact with less than 75% of the physical processor) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art (the ‘927 reference discloses that the one or more spacer pads 228 are used for identification purposes (para [35]), and as such do not require a lot of contact area with the physical processor) unless there is evidence indicating such dimensions are critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation"; MPEP 2144.05.
Referring to claims 8 and 18, the ‘927 reference discloses in the embodiment of Figs. 17 and 14G a shield can lid 1422 as detailed above for claims 1 and 11, but does not disclose that the shield can lid comprises a heat sink. However, the reference discloses in the embodiment of Figs. 12C-12D that shield can lid (1230, para [57]) comprises a heat sink (1214A, 1214B) to dissipate heat from MCM 1201 (para [56]). 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 formed the reference’s shield can lid 1422 of the embodiments of Figs. 17 and 14G with a heat sink. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in view of the teachings in the embodiment of Figs. 12C-12D to dissipate heat from the MCM 1401.
3. Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Salmon et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0407927 A1 (the ‘927 reference) in view of Shlahtichman et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20020166683 (now, both of record).
Referring to claims 9 and 19, the ‘927 reference discloses a shield comprising the shield can lid (1422) and the shield can walls as detailed above for claims 1 and 11, but does not disclose that the shield can lid comprises spring fingers configured to contact the shield can walls.
Shlahtichman, in disclosing a shield (para [1]) comprising a shield can lid (14) and a shield can walls (of frame 12), teaches that the shield can lid (14) comprises spring fingers (58A) configured to contact the shield can walls to allow removal of the lid for repairing underlying shielded components (para [11]).
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 formed the reference’s shield can lid (1422) with spring fingers configured to contact the shield can walls. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in view of the teachings in Shlahtichman to allow removal of the lid (1422) for repairing underlying shielded components (SMDs 206 of MCM 1401).
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-5, 11 and 14-15, filed 22 June 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
5. In response to applicant's argument that Salmon fails to teach or suggest “one or more spacer pads disposed between and in contact with the shield can and a first region of a physical processor, while not contacting a second region of the physical processor", it is respectfully point out that Salmon does disclose “one or more spacer pads (conformal coating 228, para [35], see also Fig. 2B), disposed between and in contact with the shield can (~1428) and the first region, and not in contact with the second region”, wherein the first region is the region including a portion of SMD 206 (see Fig. 2B) and the second region is a region that does not include the first region) (“a first region (region including a portion of SMD 206 (para [23])) and a second region (region not including said portion of SMD 206)” as detailed in the rejection.
Specifically, for ease of explanation and argument, Fig. 14G of Salmon is reproduced below, with labels (as used by applicant) “physical processor”, “first region”, “second region” and “spacer pads” added by the examiner; and as such Salmon clearly discloses: one or more spacer pads (conformal coating 228, para [35], see also Fig. 2B (“spacer pads”)), disposed between and in contact with the shield can (~1428) and the first region (“first region”), and not in contact with the second region (“second region”).
PNG
media_image1.png
314
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 2, 3, 7, 10, 12, 13, 17 and 20 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 following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited art, whether taken singularly or in combination, especially when all limitations are considered within the claimed specific combination, fails to teach or render obvious an apparatus and a system with all exclusive limitations as recited in claims 2, 3, 7, 10, 12, 13, 17 and 20, which may be characterized (claims 2 and 12) in that the first region comprises a radio receiver control region, (claims 3 and 13) the second region comprises a memory interface region, (claims 7 and 17) that a portion of the shield can lid that is disposed over the second region is recessed to increase a distance between the shield can lid and the second region, (claim 10) in that a radio receiver communicatively coupled to the radio receiver control region and a physical memory communicatively coupled to the memory interface region operate within a same frequency band, and (claim 20) in that the radio transmission component and the physical memory operate within a same frequency band.
Conclusion
7. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TU TU V HO whose telephone number is (571)272-1778. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday 6:30 - 15:00, Monday through Thursday.
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, Jeff W Natalini can be reached on 571-272-2266. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
08-01-2026
/TU-TU V HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights