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 .
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.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in view of Kim et al. (US 10,716,213) hereafter Kim.
Regarding claim 10, Schmitt, discloses network device comprising: a housing (see column 1, lines 22-30); a printed circuit board 102; a processor 106 mounted on a first surface of the printed circuit board 102; port connectors 120, 124; wherein the port connectors 120, 124 are communicatively coupled to the processor 106 via signal paths (circuit traces and pads of 140) in the rigid-flex circuit; and alignment posts 182 extending from a portion of the housing and through one or more holes in a rigid portion 140, 150 (see fig. 5) of the rigid-flex circuit.
Schmitt, does not disclose the rigid-flex circuit coupled between the second surface, opposing the first surface of the printed circuit board.
Kim discloses a paddle card 44 (along with high-speed cable 42 directly attached to surface connections) mounted on a second side of the printed circuit board 10 (see figs. 2A, 2B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first rigid portion of the rigid-flex circuit is mounted on a second side, opposing the first side of the printed circuit board as taught by Kim in order to have compact network structure and save the space within the housing of the network device, and increase the connectivity.
Regarding claim 11, Schmitt discloses the rigid portion of the rigid-flex circuit is positioned directly under the processor 106 (see fig. 1), and wherein the rigid-flex circuit is disposed between the printed circuit board and the portion of the housing.
Regarding claim 12, Schmitt, discloses the alignment posts 182 extend through one or more holes in the printed circuit board (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Schmitt discloses the holes in the rigid portion of the rigid-flex circuit.
However, Schmitt does not disclose a second diameter smaller than the first diameter.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a second diameter smaller than the first diameter, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, Schmitt discloses one or more holes in the rigid portion of the rigid-flex circuit.
However, Schmitt does not disclose the one or more holes in the rigid portion of the rigid-flex circuit further comprises: a non-circular slot configured to prevent rotation of the rigid-flex circuit within the housing the network device when at least one of the alignment posts is inserted through the non-circular slot.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the shape of one or more holes is of a non-circular shaped, in order to have same benefit as claimed and, since a change in shape is generally recognizing as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 15, Schmitt discloses all the claimed limitations except for: additional alignment posts extending from the portion of the housing and through one or more holes in the printed circuit board.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have : additional alignment posts extending from the portion of the housing and through one or more holes in the printed circuit board, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8., in order to better alignment and mechanical and stable connection therein between.
Regarding claim 16, Schmitt discloses all the claimed limitation except for the one or more holes in the rigid portion of the rigid-flex circuit comprise one or more circular holes and a non-circular slot; and the one or more holes in the printed circuit board comprise one or more circular holes having a first diameter, an additional circular hole having a second diameter smaller than the first diameter, and a non-circular slot.
As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a second diameter smaller than the first diameter, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and to have the shape of one or more holes is of a non-circular shaped, in order to have same benefit as claimed and, since a change in shape is generally recognizing as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in view of DeWitt et al. (US 5,926,378) hereafter Dewitt.
Regarding claim 19, Schmitt discloses a network device comprising: a housing (see column 1, lines 22-30); a circuit board 102 within the housing; an integrated circuit 106 disposed on a first side of the circuit board 102; first port connectors 120 disposed on the first side of the circuit board; a rigid-flex circuit 140, 150 having a first rigid portion 142A, a second rigid portion 142B, and a flexible portion 146 joining the first rigid portion 142A and the second rigid portion 142B, wherein conductive pads on the first rigid portion 142A of the rigid-flex circuit 140 are electrically coupled to the integrated circuit 106.
However, Schmitt does not disclose the conductive pads on the first rigid portion of the rigid-flex circuit are electrically coupled to the integrated circuit through conductive vias in the printed circuit board.
Schmitt does not disclose through conductive vias 152 is formed through layered circuit board 140 of rigid flex circuit 108.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the conductive pads on the first rigid portion of the rigid-flex circuit are electrically coupled to the integrated circuit through conductive vias in the printed circuit board in order to increase the stability for consistant connectivity and guiding. In short, conductive vias is not an inventive step, as it is well-known too.
However, Schmitt does not disclose second port connectors disposed on a second side of the circuit board; third port connectors disposed on a first side of the second rigid portion of the rigid-flex circuit; and fourth port connectors disposed on a second side of the second rigid portion of the rigid-flex circuit.
Dewitt, discloses port connectors 350, 355 disposed on a first and second side surfaces 311, 312 of the circuit board 310.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have second port connectors disposed on a second side of the circuit board; third port connectors disposed on a first side of the second rigid portion of the rigid-flex circuit; and fourth port connectors disposed on a second side of the second rigid portion of the rigid-flex circuit as taught by Dewitt in order to increase the connectivity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 allowed.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argument on recently amended claim 1, is persuasive, therefore the rejection, discussed in previous office action have been withdrawn, as the prior art of the prior art of record does not discloses a network device comprising a ort connectors mounted on the second rigid portion of the rigid-flex circuit and electrically coupled to the integrated circuit via signal paths in the rigid-flex circuit, wherein the port connectors include: a first group of port connectors mounted on a first side of the second rigid portion of the rigid-flex circuit; and a second group of port connectors mounted on a second side, opposing the first side, of the second rigid portion of the rigid-flex circuit.
Claims 17, 18, 20 and 21 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.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art of record does not disclose a network device further comprising: compressive applicator structures disposed between the portion of the housing and the rigid portion of the rigid-flex circuit and configured to apply compressive force to the conductive elastomer as required in combination with other limitations of this claim.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art of record does not disclose teaches coil spring structures configured to apply compressive force to conductive elastomeric material as required in combination with other limitations of this claim.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art of record does not disclose teaches conductive elastomeric material disposed between the surface of the printed circuit board and the rigid portion of rigid-flex circuit as required by this claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 5/18/2026, with respect to 1-4 and 6-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive, rejection of these claims have been withdrawn.
Regarding claims 10-12 and 19, the examiner has revised the rejection to address the applicant argument as stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARSHAD C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8289. 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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at 571-270 3119. 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.
/HARSHAD C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
