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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/5/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 newly recites “the conductive trace being disposed on the first surface… the conductive plate being disposed on the second surface in the first region.”. Note that applicant elected species I, which is the embodiment shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 2 clearly shows the conductive trace and the conductive plate are on the same surface. Thus, the newly added limitation is considered as new matter.
Claims 13 and 15 depends on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taguchi (US 9,867,274).
Regarding claim 1, Taguchi discloses a circuit board assembly (Fig. 2), comprising:
a conductive plate (15, Fig. 2; col. 2, lns. 51-64: “… wiring layer 15 of the circuit board 10 is made of conductive plate or foil that is thicker than each of the wiring layers 32… may bear a higher current than the circuit 33…”) configured to carry a current (col. 5, lns. 3-11: “…wiring 15 for high current is suitable…”); and
a circuit board (30, Fig. 2) comprising a substrate (no reference number, but can be one of the insulating/dielectric layer alternating with the wiring layers 32 in PCB 30 shown in Fig. 2) and a conductive trace (top 33, Fig. 2), wherein the circuit board comprises a first surface (top surface of 30 in Fig. 2) and a second surface (bottom surface of 30 in Fig. 2) that are disposed opposite to each other, the conductive trace being disposed on the first surface (33 on top surface of 30 as shown in Fig. 2), the conductive plate being fastened to the circuit board in a first region (region of 30 for 10) that comprises a portion of the second surface (10 on bottom surface of 30 as shown in Fig. 2), the conductive plate being disposed on the second surface in the first region (10 fastened to 30 by 41 and 43 as shown in Fig. 2); and a current-carrying capacity of the conductive plate is greater than that of the conductive trace (col. 2, lns. 51-64: “…wiring layer 15… may bear a higher current than the circuit 33…”).
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi, and further in view of Dünsbier (US 10,488,441).
Regarding claim 13, Taguchi teaches the circuit board assembly according to claim 1. Taguchi does not teach wherein a thickness of the conductive plate is greater than or equal to 0.3 mm. However, Dünsbier teaches a thickness of a conductive plate (high current conductor 5, Fig. 4) is greater than or equal to 0.3 mm (col. 2, lns. The high current conductor… preferred …. a thickness of at least 0.5mm.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thickness of the conductive plate is greater than or equal to 0.3 mm in Taguchi, as taught by Dünsbier, in order to provide high current capacity and prevent overheating.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi, and further in view of Langner et al. (US 2019/0235588).
Regarding claim 15, Taguchi teaches the circuit board assembly according to claim 1. Taguchi does not explicitly teach an electronic device, comprising a housing and wherein the circuit board assembly is fastened in the housing. However, Langner teaches an electronic device (1, Fig. 1), comprising a housing (2, Fig. 1) and a circuit board assembly (4, Fig. 1), wherein the circuit board assembly is fastened in the housing (4 is fastened in 2 by screws 7 as shown in Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an electronic device, comprising a housing and wherein the circuit board assembly is fastened in the housing in Taguchi, as taught by Langner, in order to protect and secure the circuit board assembly inside a housing of an electronic device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 13 and 15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 JAMES WU whose telephone number is (571)270-7974. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Allen Parker can be reached at (303)297-4722. 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.
/JAMES WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights