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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art Edwards et al [US 2021/00075088 A1] does not teach or discloses “An electronic device comprising: peripheral conductive housing structures; a first antenna having an antenna resonating element formed from a segment of the peripheral conductive housing structures; a first printed circuit; a first signal conductor on the first printed circuit and coupled to the segment of the peripheral conductive housing structures; a second printed circuit; a second antenna on the second printed circuit; a board-to-board (B2B) connector that couples the first printed circuit to the second printed circuit; and a second signal conductor that extends from the first printed circuit, through the B2B connector, and to the second antenna, wherein the second signal conductor comprises an impedance matching segment on the second printed circuit between the B2B connector and the second antenna.” (see page 12-17).
Examiners agrees:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually in regards to the limitation of the claim 1 “a first signal conductor on the first printed circuit and coupled to the segment of the peripheral conductive housing structures” Edwards still discloses and teaches a first signal conductor (Fig. 9, 94 & Paragraph [0081] & Fig. 3, 46 and 48 & Paragraph [0051]) on the first printed circuit (Fig. 9, 86 & Paragraph [0082]) and coupled to the segment of the peripheral conductive housing structures (Fig. 1, 12, 12W, 12R & Paragraph [0026 & 0063 & 0081]);
Applicant Drawings
Edwards et al [US 2021/00075088 A1]
PNG
media_image1.png
641
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
562
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
634
496
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
455
517
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
319
289
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Edwards discloses Antennas 40 in phased antenna array 54 may be arranged in any desired number of rows and columns or in any other desired pattern (e.g., the antennas need not be arranged in a grid pattern having rows and columns). During signal transmission operations, radio-frequency transmission lines 42 may be used to supply signals (e.g., radio-frequency signals such as millimeter wave and/or centimeter wave signals) from millimeter/centimeter wave transceiver circuitry 38 (FIG. 3) to phased antenna array 54 for wireless transmission. During signal reception operations, radio-frequency transmission lines 42 may be used to convey signals received at phased antenna array 54 (e.g., from external wireless equipment or transmitted signals that have been reflected off of external objects) to millimeter/centimeter wave transceiver circuitry 38 (FIG. 3) (see paragraph [0055]) and In general, device 10 may include any suitable number of antennas (e.g., one or more, two or more, three or more, four or more, etc.). The antennas in device 10 may be located at opposing first and second ends of an elongated device housing (e.g., ends at regions 22 and 20 of device 10 of FIG. 1), along one or more edges of a device housing, in the center of a device housing, in other suitable locations, or in one or more of these locations. The arrangement of FIG. 1 is merely illustrative. (see paragraph [0036])
The claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is similar or the same in which reads and discloses the broadness of the claim languages, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually in regards to the limitation of the claims 7, 10-11,24-26, 28 and 30-31 the limitation is “ground bars” does not teach or discloses “bars” (see page 13-17). Examiner disagrees:
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a ground is an electrical ground which is a safety system connecting an electrical circuit or device to the Earth, providing a low-resistance path for fault currents to prevent shocks and stabilize voltage by dissipating excess electrical energy, acting as a zero-volt reference point for measurements. It's crucial for safety, protecting people and equipment from dangerous current buildup and short circuits. Therefore, the prior art of record Edwards teaches and discloses in FIG. 12 is a top-down view of an illustrative layout for antenna board 100 in one suitable arrangement. As shown in FIG. 12, antenna board 100 may include a ground (GND) layer 120 on a top surface of the underlying dielectric layers (e.g., conductive traces held at a ground potential and sometimes referred to herein as ground traces 120). Conductive interconnect structures 98 for antenna board 100 (FIGS. 7-11) may include ground interconnect structures 98G (e.g., solder balls or bumps sometimes referred to herein as ground solder balls 98G) and signal interconnect structures 98S (e.g., solder balls or bumps sometimes referred to herein as signal solder balls 98S) in which discloses the limitation of a ground in claims 7, 10-11,24-26, 28 and 30-31.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Ground bars 132 and 134 may greatly increase the soldered area of B2B connector 102, thereby maximizing the mechanical strength of B2B connector 102 and the coupling between printed circuits 88 and 100, preventing the printed circuits from becoming separated and/or deteriorating antenna performance even as device 10 is subject to external forces such as drop events during its lifetime. Holding ground bars 132 and 134 at a ground potential may prevent the ground bars from interfering with radio-frequency signals conveyed over signal contacts 128 and ground contacts 130 while also helping to shield the radio-frequency signals from interference from other components.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore the applicant never recited anything within claims regards to dimensions of the ground bar.
As the examiner reviews applicant specification in paragraph [0093] “Ground bars 132 may be larger than ground contacts 130. Ground bars 132 and 134 may, if desired, have a substantially rectangular (bar) shape. Ground contacts 130 may, if desired, have a circular or rounded shape. Ground bars 134 may be larger (longer) than ground bars 132. Ground bars 134 may laterally extend around two or more (e.g., opposing) sides of B2B connector 102.” In which recites the obvious or shape of the grounds in which it could be bar of solder ball which means design choice as the applicant the term “desired”. There is no particular differentiation in the ground function that ground bars of the applicant provides and solder ground balls 98G of Edwards. The applicant must do more to separate the invention from the prior art in terms of structure. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change ground contacts to ground bars, since it has been held that the configuration of the ground bars was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-7, 9-11, 22-28 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al [US 2021/00075088 A1]
In regards to claims 1. Edwards discloses an electronic device (Fig. 1, 10) comprising:
peripheral conductive housing structures (Fig. 1, 12, 12W, 12R & Paragraph [0026]);
a first antenna (Paragraph [0037] “(e.g., dielectric openings other than gaps 18) and may serve as dielectric antenna windows for antennas mounted within the interior of device 10”) having an antenna resonating element formed (Paragraph [0038-39] “device 10 may have one or more upper antennas and one or more lower antennas (as an example). An upper antenna may, for example, be formed at the upper end of device 10 in region 20”) from a segment of the peripheral conductive housing structures (Fig. 1, 20 and 22);
a first printed circuit (Fig. 9, 86);
a first signal conductor (Fig. 9, 94) on the first printed circuit (Fig. 9, 86) and coupled to the segment of the peripheral conductive housing structures (Fig. 1, 12, 12W, 12R & Paragraph [0026]);
a second printed circuit (Fig. 9, 100);
a second antenna (Fig. 9, 40 & Paragraph [0081] “Matching segments 110 may be interposed on impedance-controlled transmission line paths 94 at or after each external interface of logic board 86 (e.g., at conductive vias coupled to interconnect structures 96 and 98) to help ensure that impedance is sufficiently matched along the entire transmission line path from the radio-frequency front end components on RFIC 88 to antennas 40”) on the second printed circuit (Fig. 9, 100);
a conductive interconnect structures (Fig. 9, 98) that couples the first printed circuit (Fig. 9, 86) to the second printed circuit (Fig. 9, 100); and
a second signal conductor (Fig. 9, 102) that extends from the first printed circuit (Fig. 9, 86), through the conductive interconnect structures (Fig. 9, 98), and to the second antenna (Fig. 9, 40 & Paragraph [0081] “Matching segments 110 may be interposed on impedance-controlled transmission line paths 94 at or after each external interface of logic board 86 (e.g., at conductive vias coupled to interconnect structures 96 and 98) to help ensure that impedance is sufficiently matched along the entire transmission line path from the radio-frequency front end components on RFIC 88 to antennas 40”), wherein the second signal conductor (Fig. 9, 102) comprises an impedance matching segment (Fig. 9, 112) on the second printed circuit (Fig. 9, 100) between the conductive interconnect structures (Fig. 9, 98) and the second antenna (Fig. 9, 40).
Edwards does not specify explicitly the details of a board-to-board (B2B) connector in Fig. 9
Edwards discloses in Fig. 12 a board-to-board (B2B) connector (Paragraph [0084] “FIG. 12 is a top-down view of an illustrative layout for antenna board 100 in one suitable arrangement. As shown in FIG. 12, antenna board 100 may include a ground (GND) layer 120 on a top surface of the underlying dielectric layers (e.g., conductive traces held at a ground potential and sometimes referred to herein as ground traces 120). Conductive interconnect structures 98 for antenna board 100 (FIGS. 7-11) may include ground interconnect structures 98G (e.g., solder balls or bumps sometimes referred to herein as ground solder balls 98G) and signal interconnect structures 98S (e.g., solder balls or bumps sometimes referred to herein as signal solder balls 98S).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Edwards with a board-to-board (B2B) connector for purpose of improved matching at their input and output and provide impedance control as disclosed by Edwards (Paragraph [0083 & 0085]).
In regards to claims 2. Edwards discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first printed circuit (Fig. 9, 86) comprises a flexible printed circuit board (Fig. 9, 86 & Paragraph [0075]).
In regards to claims 3. Edwards discloses the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the second printed circuit (Fig. 9, 100) comprises a rigid printed circuit board (Fig. 9,100 & Paragraph [0075]).
In regards to claims 4. Edwards discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the second signal conductor (Fig. 9, 102) has a portion on the first printed circuit (Fig. 9, 86), the impedance matching segment (Fig. 9, 112) being thicker than the portion on the first printed circuit (Fig. 9, 86).
In regards to claims 5. Edwards discloses the electronic device of claim 4, further comprising: a phased antenna (Abstract) array on the second printed circuit (Fig. 9, 100) and configured to convey radio-frequency signals at a frequency greater than 10 GHz (Paragraph [0088 & 0043]), the phased antenna array (Abstract) including the second antenna (Fig. 9, 40).
In regards to claims 6. Edwards discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the B2B connector comprises: a signal contact that forms part of the second signal conductor (Fig. 9, 98 and Fig. 12, 98s), the impedance matching segment (Fig. 9, 112) being coupled between the signal contact (Fig. 12, 98s) and a positive antenna feed terminal of the second antenna (Fig. 9, 40).
In regards to claims 7. Edwards discloses the electronic device of claim 6, wherein the B2B connector further comprises: four ground contacts (Fig. 12, 98G) laterally surrounding the signal contact (Fig. 12, 98S), a set of ground (Fig. 12, 98G) laterally surrounding the four ground contacts (Fig. 12, 98G).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change ground contacts to ground bars, since it has been held that the configuration of the ground bars was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
In regards to claims 9. Edwards discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the B2B connector comprises:
a first row of ground contacts (Fig. 12, 98G);
a second row of signal contacts (Fig. 12, 98G) laterally offset from the ground contacts in the first row;
a third row of ground contacts (Fig. 12, 98G) laterally offset from the signal contacts (Fig. 12, 98S) in the second row and aligned with the ground contacts (Fig. 12, 98G) in the first row;
a fourth row of signal contacts (Fig. 12, 98G) laterally offset from the ground contacts in the third row and aligned with the signal contacts (Fig. 12, 98S) in the second row; and
a fifth row of ground contacts (Fig. 12, 98G) laterally offset from the signal contacts (Fig. 12, 98S) in the fourth row and aligned with the ground contacts (Fig. 12, 98G) in the first and third rows,
wherein the impedance matching segment (Fig. 9, 112) is coupled between one of the signal contacts (Fig. 12, 98S) in the second row and a feed terminal on the second antenna (Fig. 9, 40).
Applicant Figure 13
Prior Art Figure 12
PNG
media_image6.png
403
446
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
788
395
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regards to claims 10. Edwards discloses the electronic device of claim 9, wherein the B2B connector further comprises: first and second ground (Fig. 12, 98G), wherein the first row of ground contacts (Fig. 12, 98G) is laterally interposed between the second row of signal contacts (Fig. 12, 98S) and the first and second ground (Fig. 12, 98G); and third and fourth ground (Fig. 12, 98G), wherein the fifth row of ground contacts (Fig. 12, 98G) is laterally interposed between the fourth row of signal contacts (Fig. 12, 98S) and the third and fourth ground (Fig. 12, 98G).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (ground bars)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image8.png
411
773
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change ground contacts to ground bars, since it has been held that the configuration of the ground bars was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
In regards to claims 11. Edwards discloses the electronic device of claim 10, wherein the B2B connector further comprises: fifth and sixth ground (Fig. 12, 98G) that extend from the first ground (Fig. 12, 98G) to the third ground (Fig. 12, 98G) at a first side of the B2B connector; and seventh and eight ground (Fig. 12, 98G) that extend from the second ground (Fig. 12, 98G) to the fourth ground (Fig. 12, 98G) at a second side of the B2B connector opposite the first side.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change ground contacts to ground bars, since it has been held that the configuration of the ground bars was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
In regards to claims 22. Edwards discloses the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising: a display (Fig. 1, 14) mounted to the peripheral conductive housing structures (Fig. 1, 12 and 20 to 22); a dielectric cover layer (Paragraph [0024-25 & 0029 & 0034-35 & 0037]) mounted to the peripheral conductive housing structures (Fig. 1, 12 and 20 to 22) opposite the display (Fig. 1, 14); a conductive layer (Paragraph [0025 & 0029]) on the dielectric cover layer (Paragraph [0024-25 & 0029 & 0034-35 & 0037]); and an opening in the conductive layer (Fig. 1, 18), wherein the second antenna (Fig. 9, 40) is aligned with the opening.
In regards to claims 23. Edwards discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the B2B connector comprises: a signal contact (Fig. 12, 98S); and first, second, third, and fourth ground contacts (Fig. 12, 98G), wherein the first ground contact, the signal contact (Fig. 12, 98S), and the fourth ground contact (Fig. 12, 98G) are aligned along a first axis and wherein the second ground contact (Fig. 12, 98G), the signal contact (Fig. 12, 98S), and the third ground contact (Fig. 12, 98G) are aligned along a second axis that is non- parallel with respect to the first axis.
In regards to claims 24, Edwards discloses the electronic device of claim 23, further comprising: a first row of ground (Fig. 12, 98G), wherein the first and second ground contacts (Fig. 12, 98G) are laterally interposed between the first row of ground (Fig. 12, 98G) and the signal contact (Fig. 12, 98S); and a second row of ground (Fig. 12, 98G), wherein the third and fourth ground contacts (Fig. 12, 98G) are laterally interposed between the second row of ground (Fig. 12, 98G) and the signal contact (Fig. 12, 98S).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change ground contacts to ground bars, since it has been held that the configuration of the ground bars was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
In regards to claims 25. Edwards discloses the electronic device of claim 24, further comprising: a first ground (Fig. 12, 98G), the first row of ground (Fig. 12, 98G) being laterally interposed between the first and second ground contacts (Fig. 12, 98G) and the first ground (Fig. 12, 98G); and a second ground (Fig. 12, 98G), the second row of ground (Fig. 12, 98G) being laterally interposed between the third and fourth ground contacts (Fig. 12, 98G) and the second ground (Fig. 12, 98G), wherein the first ground (Fig. 12, 98G) and the second ground (Fig. 12, 98G) are longer than each ground (Fig. 12, 98G) in the first row of ground (Fig. 12, 98G) and each ground in the second row of ground (Fig. 12, 98G).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change ground contacts to ground bars, since it has been held that the configuration of the ground bars was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
In regards to claims 26. Edwards discloses an electronic device (Fig. 1, 10) comprising:
a first printed circuit (Fig. 9, 86);
a first signal conductor (Fig. 9, 94 & Paragraph [0081] & Fig. 3, 46 and 48 & Paragraph [0051]) on the first printed circuit (Fig. 9, 86);
a second printed circuit (Fig. 9, 100);
an antenna (Fig. 9, 40 & Paragraph [0081] “Matching segments 110 may be interposed on impedance-controlled transmission line paths 94 at or after each external interface of logic board 86 (e.g., at conductive vias coupled to interconnect structures 96 and 98) to help ensure that impedance is sufficiently matched along the entire transmission line path from the radio-frequency front end components on RFIC 88 to antennas 40”) on the second printed circuit (Fig. 9, 100);
a conductive interconnect structures (Fig. 9, 98) that couples the first printed circuit (Fig. 9, 86) to the second printed circuit (Fig. 9, 100); and
a second signal conductor (Fig. 9, 102) that extends from the first printed circuit (Fig. 9, 86), through the conductive interconnect structures (Fig. 9, 98), and to the second antenna (Fig. 9, 40 & Paragraph [0081] “Matching segments 110 may be interposed on impedance-controlled transmission line paths 94 at or after each external interface of logic board 86 (e.g., at conductive vias coupled to interconnect structures 96 and 98) to help ensure that impedance is sufficiently matched along the entire transmission line path from the radio-frequency front end components on RFIC 88 to antennas 40”), wherein the second signal conductor (Fig. 9, 102) comprises an impedance matching segment (Fig. 9, 112) on the second printed circuit (Fig. 9, 100) between the conductive interconnect structures (Fig. 9, 98) and the second antenna (Fig. 9, 40).
Edwards does not specify explicitly the details of a board-to-board (B2B) connector, a set of signal contacts, a set of ground contacts interleaved with the set of signal contacts, and a set of ground bars laterally surrounding the set of signal contacts and the set of ground contacts in Fig. 9
Edwards discloses in Fig. 12 a board-to-board (B2B) connector (Paragraph [0084] “FIG. 12 is a top-down view of an illustrative layout for antenna board 100 in one suitable arrangement. As shown in FIG. 12, antenna board 100 may include a ground (GND) layer 120 on a top surface of the underlying dielectric layers (e.g., conductive traces held at a ground potential and sometimes referred to herein as ground traces 120). Conductive interconnect structures 98 for antenna board 100 (FIGS. 7-11) may include ground interconnect structures 98G (e.g., solder balls or bumps sometimes referred to herein as ground solder balls 98G) and signal interconnect structures 98S (e.g., solder balls or bumps sometimes referred to herein as signal solder balls 98S).”), wherein the B2B connector comprises: a set of signal contacts (Fig. 12, 98S), a set of ground contacts (Fig. 12, 98G) interleaved with the set of signal contacts (Fig. 12, 98S), and a set of ground (Fig. 12, 98G) laterally surrounding the set of signal contacts (Fig. 12, 98S) and the set of ground contacts (Fig. 12, 98G).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Edwards with the details of a board-to-board (B2B) connector, a set of signal contacts, a set of ground contacts interleaved with the set of signal contacts, and a set of ground bars laterally surrounding the set of signal contacts and the set of ground contacts for purpose of improved matching at their input and output and provide impedance control as disclosed by Edwards (Paragraph [0083 & 0085]).
Edwards discloses the claimed invention except for ground bars. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change ground contacts to ground bars, since it has been held that the configuration of the ground bars was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
In regards to claims 27. Edwards discloses the electronic device of claim 26, wherein the set of signal contacts (Fig. 12, 98S) comprises a first set of contact pads (Paragraph [0075-76]) on the first printed circuit (Fig. 9, 86), a second set of contact pads on the second printed circuit (Fig. 9, 100), and a first set of solder balls (Paragraph [0075-76]) between the first and second sets of contact pads (Paragraph [0075-76]).
In regards to claims 28. Edwards discloses the electronic device of claim 27, wherein the set of ground contacts (Fig. 12, 98G) comprises a third set of contact pads (Paragraph [0075-76]) on the first printed circuit (Fig. 9, 86), a fourth set of contact pads on the second printed circuit (Fig. 9, 100), and a second set of solder balls between the third and fourth sets of contact pads (Paragraph [0075-76]).
In regards to claims 30. Edwards discloses an electronic device comprising:
a first printed circuit (Fig. 9, 86);
a first signal conductor (Fig. 9, 94 & Paragraph [0081] & Fig. 3, 46 and 48 & Paragraph [0051]) on the first printed circuit (Fig. 9, 86);
a second printed circuit (Fig. 9, 100);
an antenna (Fig. 9, 40 & Paragraph [0081] “Matching segments 110 may be interposed on impedance-controlled transmission line paths 94 at or after each external interface of logic board 86 (e.g., at conductive vias coupled to interconnect structures 96 and 98) to help ensure that impedance is sufficiently matched along the entire transmission line path from the radio-frequency front end components on RFIC 88 to antennas 40”) on the second printed circuit (Fig. 9, 100);
a conductive interconnect structures (Fig. 9, 98) that couples the first printed circuit to the second printed circuit (Fig. 9, 100); and
a second signal conductor (Fig. 9, 102) that extends from the first printed circuit (Fig. 9, 86), through the conductive interconnect structures (Fig. 9, 98), and to the antenna (Fig. 9, 40 & Paragraph [0081] “Matching segments 110 may be interposed on impedance-controlled transmission line paths 94 at or after each external interface of logic board 86 (e.g., at conductive vias coupled to interconnect structures 96 and 98) to help ensure that impedance is sufficiently matched along the entire transmission line path from the radio-frequency front end components on RFIC 88 to antennas 40”),
Edwards does not specify explicitly the details of a board-to-board (B2B) connector, wherein the B2B connector comprises: a signal contact that forms part of the second signal conductor, four ground contacts laterally surrounding the signal contact, a first ground bar extending parallel to a first axis, a second ground bar extending parallel to the first axis, a first row of ground bars laterally interposed between the first ground bar and the four ground contacts a second row of ground bars laterally interposed between the second ground bar and the four ground contacts, wherein the ground bars in the first row and the ground bars in the second row extend parallel to a second axis that is orthogonal to the first axis.
Edwards discloses in Fig. 12 wherein the B2B connector comprises: a signal contact (Fig. 12, 98S); and first, second, third, and fourth ground contacts (Fig. 12, 98G), wherein the first ground contact, the signal contact (Fig. 12, 98S), and the fourth ground contact (Fig. 12, 98G) are aligned along a first axis and wherein the second ground contact (Fig. 12, 98G), the signal contact (Fig. 12, 98S), and the third ground contact (Fig. 12, 98G) are aligned along a second axis that is non-parallel with respect to the first axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to modify Edwards with a board-to-board (B2B) connector, wherein the B2B connector comprises: a signal contact that forms part of the second signal conductor, four ground contacts laterally surrounding the signal contact, a first ground bar extending parallel to a first axis, a second ground bar extending parallel to the first axis, a first row of ground bars laterally interposed between the first ground bar and the four ground contacts a second row of ground bars laterally interposed between the second ground bar and the four ground contacts, wherein the ground bars in the first row and the ground bars in the second row extend parallel to a second axis that is orthogonal to the first axis for purpose of improved matching at their input and output and provide impedance control as disclosed by Edwards (Paragraph [0083 & 0085]).
In regards to claims 31. Edwards discloses the electronic device of claim 30, wherein the first row of ground (Fig. 12, 98G) comprises a third ground (Fig. 12, 98G), a fourth ground (Fig. 12, 98G), and a fifth ground (Fig. 12, 98G), the second row of ground (Fig. 12, 98G) comprises a sixth ground (Fig. 12, 98G), a seventh ground (Fig. 12, 98G), and an eighth ground (Fig. 12, 98G), the third ground (Fig. 12, 98G) is aligned with the sixth ground (Fig. 12, 98G), the fourth ground (Fig. 12, 98G) is aligned with the signal contact (Fig. 12, 98S) and the seventh ground (Fig. 12, 98G), and the fifth ground (Fig. 12, 98G) is aligned with the eighth ground (Fig. 12, 98G).
Applicant Drawings
Prior art Edwards
PNG
media_image9.png
493
551
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
634
328
media_image10.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (ground bars)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image8.png
411
773
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change ground contacts to ground bars, since it has been held that the configuration of the ground bars was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEI (VICTOR) CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5177. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am to 6:00pm.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at 571-270-7101. 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.
WEI (VICTOR) CHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2844
/WEI (VICTOR) Y CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844