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.
Claim(s) 10-14 and 17-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,582,432 (Featherby et al.) in view of US 2007/0278004 (Dalzell et al.).
Regarding claim 10, Featherby et al. discloses a device comprising:
a circuit card assembly (‘For multi-chip modules (MCMs) where there are multiple integrated circuits within a single package,’);
a conformal coat including a polymeric composition metallized with a high-Z material, the conformal coat covering a surface of the circuit card assembly including the grounding region (‘a conformal coating material composed of a matrix of densely packed radiation shielding particles, which are disbursed within a binder.’); and
a coating layer covering the conformal coat (‘For marking and hermiticity, a layer of smooth unimpregnated coating material is applied to the top layer.’);
wherein the conformal coat and the coating layer are configured to provide radiation shielding to the circuit card assembly, the radiation shielding effective to provide radiation protection against an ionizing radiation environment (‘The shielding composition is applied to objects to be protected such as integrated circuits, or to packages therefor, as well as for protecting animals including humans from unwanted exposure to radiation in outer space or other environments.’).
Featherby does not disclose whether the coating layer includes the high-Z material. Dalzell et al. disclose a device including radiation shielding with a coating layer (‘Covering 12 may be formed from any material or combination of materials that help provide such a coating with radiation shielding characteristics.’ P 31) including a high-Z material (‘Representative examples of materials with radiation shielding characteristics include elements having an atomic number of 39 or greater,’ P 31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use the high-Z material of Dalzell for the coating layer of Featherby et al. to provide an additional layer of radiation shielding.
Featherby et al. also does not disclose grounding region, wherein the grounding region is connected to a chassis ground; the conformal coat over the circuit card assembly including the grounding region. Circuit chip assemblies commonly include contacts that connect to a chassis ground, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include such a grounded contact connected to the conformal coat to prevent a build-up of charge on the coat that can result in damaging discharges.
Regarding claim 11, Featherby et al. in view of Dalzell et al. disclose the device of claim 10, wherein the circuit card assembly includes a set of electronic components mounted on a printed circuit board, the electronic components comprising one or more chips (‘multi-chip modules (MCMs)’).
Featherby et al. does not specify the chips include one or more inertial sensors, processor chips, or memory chips. All are common forms of integrated circuits, and it would have been obvious to use any of them because they are all electronics and therefore sensitive to radiation.
Regarding claim 12, Featherby et al. in view of Dalzell et al. disclose the device of claim 10, wherein the polymeric composition includes a polymeric material comprising an acrylic material, a polyurethane material, parylene, or combinations thereof (‘the inventive composition conformal coating include a latex or similar flexible binder.’, also ‘The binder can be a urethane.’).
Regarding claim 13, Featherby et al. in view of Dalzell et al. disclose the device of claim 10, wherein the high-Z material comprises tungsten, tantalum, or combinations thereof (‘high Z material such as tungsten’, ‘high Z material such as tantalum’).
Regarding claim 14, Featherby et al. in view of Dalzell et al. disclose the device of claim 10, wherein the conformal coat of the polymeric composition is embedded with particles of the high-Z material (‘a conformal coating material composed of a matrix of densely packed radiation shielding particles, which are disbursed within a binder.’).
Regarding claim 17, Featherby et al. in view of Dalzell et al. disclose the device of claim 10, wherein the high-Z material of the coating layer is the same as the high-Z material of the conformal coat (both disclose tungsten and tantalum as options, it would have been obvious to use either tungsten for both or tantalum for both so the method could be done without need for obtaining and storing multiple high-Z materials).
Regarding claim 18, Featherby et al. in view of Dalzell et al. disclose the device of claim 10, , wherein the high-Z material of the coating layer is different than the high-Z material of the conformal coat (obvious to choose different materials to optimize the material to the purpose – some high-Z materials may be better able to mix with polymers for example, well others are better suited to forming smooth surfaces).
Regarding claim 19, Featherby et al. in view of Dalzell et al. disclose the device of claim 10, wherein the high-Z material of the coating layer comprises tungsten, tantalum, or combinations thereof (‘Representative examples of preferred elements include Hf, Ta, W, Re, Os, Ir, Pt, Au, Tl, Pb, Bi, and Ba.’ P 31).
Regarding claim 20, Featherby et al. discloses a method comprising:
providing a circuit card (‘For multi-chip modules (MCMs) where there are multiple integrated circuits within a single package,’);
applying a conformal coat metallized with the a high-Z material over a surface of the circuit card assembly (‘For integrated circuits already attached to a board, either in a bare die form or with an existing coating, the coating is applied with a mold, by "globbing" the composition on, by spraying or painting.’ wherein ‘The tungsten powder serves as a high Z material for radiation shielding purposes.’); and
forming a coating layer over the conformal coat the coating (‘For marking and hermiticity, a layer of smooth unimpregnated coating material is applied to the top layer.’);
wherein the conformal coat and the coating layer provide radiation shielding to the circuit card assembly, the radiation shielding effective to provide radiation protection against an ionizing radiation environment (‘The shielding composition is applied to objects to be protected such as integrated circuits, or to packages therefor, as well as for protecting animals including humans from unwanted exposure to radiation in outer space or other environments.’).
Featherby et al. does not disclose the use of a vapor deposition technique in the application of the conformal coating, or the coating layer being composed of a high-Z material. Dalzell discloses application of a conformal coat by vapor deposition (‘Preferred deposition techniques include thermal spraying, chemical vapor deposition and combustion chemical vapor deposition.’ P 29) as well as a coating layer composed of a high-Z material (‘Representative examples of materials with radiation shielding characteristics include elements having an atomic number of 39 or greater,’ P 31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute the vapor deposition method of Dalzell for the globbing or spraying method of Featherby et al. because they are functional equivalents and the use of vapor deposition is not disclosed by applicant to be important or to have any particular advantage. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use the high-Z material of the coating layer of Dalzell et al. for the coating layer of Featherby et al. of unknown composition to provide an additional layer of radiation shielding.
Featherby et al. also does not disclose a grounding region, wherein the grounding region is connected to a chassis ground; the conformal coat over the circuit card assembly including the grounding region. Circuit chip assemblies commonly include contacts that connect to a chassis ground, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include such a grounded contact connected to the conformal coat to prevent a build-up of charge on the coat that can result in damaging discharges.
Regarding claim 21, Featherby et al. in view of Dalzell et al. disclose the method of claim 20, wherein the circuit card assembly includes a set of electronic components mounted on a printed circuit board (‘multi-chip modules (MCMs)’).
Featherby et al. does not specify the chips include one or more inertial sensors, processor chips, or memory chips. All are common forms of integrated circuits, and it would have been obvious to use any of them because they are all electronics and therefore sensitive to radiation.
Regarding claim 22, Featherby et al. in view of Dalzell et al. disclose the method of claim 20, wherein the conformal coat includes a polymeric composition comprising an acrylic material, a polyurethane material, parylene, or combinations thereof (‘the inventive composition conformal coating include a latex or similar flexible binder.’, also ‘The binder can be a urethane.’).
Regarding claim 23, Featherby et al. in view of Dalzell et al. disclose the method of claim 22, wherein the polymeric composition is embedded with particles of the high-Z material (‘a conformal coating material composed of a matrix of densely packed radiation shielding particles, which are disbursed within a binder.’).
Regarding claim 24, Featherby et al. in view of Dalzell et al. disclose the method of claim 20, wherein the high-Z material of the coating layer is the same as the high-Z material of the conformal coat (both disclose tungsten and tantalum as options, it would have been obvious to use either tungsten for both or tantalum for both so the method could be done without need for obtaining and storing multiple high-Z materials).
Regarding claim 25, Featherby et al. in view of Dalzell et al. disclose the method of claim 20, wherein the high-Z material of the coating layer is different than the high-Z material of the conformal coat (obvious to choose different materials to optimize the material to the purpose – some high-Z materials may be better able to mix with polymers for example, well others are better suited to forming smooth surfaces).
Regarding claim 26, Featherby et al. in view of Dalzell et al. disclose the method of claim 20, wherein the high-Z material of the conformal coat comprises tungsten, tantalum, or combinations thereof (‘high Z material such as tungsten’, ‘high Z material such as tantalum’).
Regarding claim 27, Featherby et al. in view of Dalzell et al. disclose the method of claim 20, wherein the high-Z material of the coating layer comprises tungsten, tantalum, or combinations thereof (‘Representative examples of preferred elements include Hf, Ta, W, Re, Os, Ir, Pt, Au, Tl, Pb, Bi, and Ba.’ P 31).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Featherby et al. as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of US 8,940,827 (Wang).
Regarding claim 15, Featherby et al. in view of Dalzell discloses the device of claim 14, wherein: a density of the particles of the high-Z material, embedded in the polymeric composition, ranges from about 10 % to about 90 % (fig. 10).
Featherby et al. does not specify whether a size of the particles of the high-Z material ranges from about 1 micron to about 100 microns. Wang et al. discloses a composite material for radiation shielding comprising high-Z material particles embedded in a polymer, wherein the particle sizes range from about 1 micron to about 100 microns (‘In another example, the heavy particulate fillers have an average particle size between about 0.1 micron and about 100 microns.’). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use particles of the sizes disclosed in Wang if such sizes were desired, as applicant has not specified that this particle size solves any particular problem, and it appears that the range merely describes particles sizes that are typical in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the outer and inner layers 810, 812 of low-Z particles disclosed in Featherby does not correspond with the coating layer.
Examiner agrees. Layers 810-812 together form a multilayer conformal coating (“the optimum shielding entails a conformal coating having three layers; namely, a high Z layer sandwiched between two low Z layers.” Col. 4, lines 61-63). Featherby discloses but does not show a coating layer applied over the top layer of the conformal coat (on top of layer 810 in the example of fig. 8) (“For marking and hermiticity, a layer of smooth unimpregnated coating material is applied to the top layer.” Col. 4, lines 63-64).
Applicant remaining arguments with respect to the device claims are predicated on the assumption that examiner was equating layers 810 and 812 to the coating layer, which examiner has already stated is false. Therefore, examiner will not address them individually.
With respect to the method claims, the prior rejection has been overcome by amendment, so the arguments are moot.
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 ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881