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 January 2, 2026 has been entered. Independent claim 1 has been amended. No claims have been canceled and no new claims have been added. Claims 1-13 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendment to the Specification has overcome the objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated October 3, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed January 2, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under §102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Lin (WO 2014/205964 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (WO 2014/205964 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches an electronic device, comprising:
a housing (block 10) comprising a conductive via and a concave hole (see annotated Fig. 4 below), wherein the conductive via is located outside the concave hole and passes through the housing (see annotated Fig. 4 showing the conductive via below the concave hole and passing through a top surface of block 10);
a first metal trace (abutting portion 23; see also annotated Fig. 4) disposed on an inner surface (ring abutting portion 13) of the housing (10), the conductive via electrically connected to the first metal trace (see Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. 4);
a conductive pillar (plug electrode 21; see also annotated Fig. 4) disposed in the concave hole and exposed from the housing (see annotated Fig. 4), the conductive pillar (21) electrically connected to the conductive via (see Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. 4);
a circuit board (circuit board 30) disposed inside the housing (10); and
a metal connecting element (contact electrode 24) disposed on the circuit board (30) and electrically connected to the first metal trace (see Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
528
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Lin further teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein a height of the conductive pillar (21) is not greater than a depth of the concave hole (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Lin further teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the metal connecting element (24) is disposed on an edge of the circuit board (see annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
524
565
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wagman et al. (US 9,948,018 B2), hereinafter Wagman.
Regarding claim 3, Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Lin lacks a specific teaching that a first chamfered structure is formed between an outer surface of the housing and an inner sidewall of the concave hole, and a second chamfered structure is formed between the inner sidewall of the concave hole and a bottom surface of the concave hole.
Wagman teaches an electronic device comprising a housing (device enclosure 1730) and a concave hole, wherein a first chamfered structure is formed between an outer surface of the housing and an inner sidewall of the concave hole, and a second chamfered structure is formed between the inner sidewall of the concave hole and a bottom surface of the concave hole (see annotated Fig. 27 below).
Lin and Wagman are considered to be analogous arts 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 modify the concave hole of Lin to include a first chamfered structure between an outer surface of the housing and an inner sidewall of the concave hole, and a second chamfered structure between the inner sidewall of the concave hole and a bottom surface of the concave hole. Doing so would improve the connection between blocks.
PNG
media_image3.png
448
873
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Lin lacks a specific teaching that a metal portion is disposed on a bottom surface of the concave hole, the concave hole is communicated with the conductive via, and the metal portion is electrically connected to the conductive pillar and the conductive via.
Wagman teaches a metal portion (contact 1822) disposed on a bottom surface of a concave hole, wherein the concave hole is communicated with a conductive via (handle 1714) and the metal portion (1822) is electrically connected to a conductive pillar (contact 1712) and the conductive via (see Fig. 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the electronic device taught by Lin by including a metal portion disposed on a bottom surface of the concave hole, electrically connected to the conductive pillar and the conductive via. Doing so would increase the device’s electrical contact surface, providing for a more reliable electrical connection.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Wagman as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0171888 A1), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 11, Lin in view of Wagman teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 as stated above. Lin in view of Wagman lack a specific teaching that the conductive via is formed by laser drilling through the housing.
Kim teaches an electronic device including vias formed by laser drilling (see paragraph 0117).
Kim is considered to be analogous art because it is 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 form the vias by laser drilling. Doing so is an effective way to form a channel for a conductive via.
Regarding claim 12, Lin and Wagman in view of Kim teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Lin and Wagman in view of Kim further teaches the electronic device according to claim 11, further comprising a waterproof element (Wagman: seal 1810) disposed on the side of the conductive via facing the inner surface (Wagman: see Figs. 26 and 27).
It would be obvious to place a waterproof element on the side of Lin’s conductive via facing the inner surface in order to prevent moisture from entering in to the housing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest a second metal trace disposed on the outer surface of the housing with one end of the second metal trace being electrically connected to the conductive via and another end of the second metal trace being extended into the concave hole and electrically connected to the conductive pillar. Claims 5-9 are indicated allowable by virtue of dependency to claim 4.
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