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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
This application claims foreign priority to EP Application No. 22 201 228, filed October 13, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) is submitted on 12/21/2023 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. According, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 12 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5, 12 and 18 recites “substantially”. Examiner recommend deleting this phrase. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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.
Claim 1-5, 10, 12, 14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue (US 20140018018 A1).
Claim 1-5, 10, 12, 14 and 18-20 are also/alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Inoue (US 20140018018 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue teaches a shielding element (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0035; a shield case 30) for at least partially shielding electromagnetic energy radiating (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0035; the main portion of the high-frequency communication device 1 includes the transmitting and receiving circuit board 10 and a shield case 30, which entirely covers a front surface 10b of the transmitting and receiving circuit board 10. One of the purposes of providing the shield case 30 is to prevent, inter alia: unwanted leakage of a radio wave toward outside of the device; undesirable intrusion of a radio wave from outside of the device to the transmitting and receiving circuit; unwanted coupling between components of the aforementioned circuit (various components, patterns, and those collectively acting as a component or a pattern); and signal infiltration) from an electronic component (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0037; transmitting and receiving circuit includes active components 12), the shielding element comprising:
an inner wall adapted to face the electronic component when assembled (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0040; the shield case 30 includes a ceiling portion 32 [interpreted as an inner wall]. The ceiling portion 32 opposes the transmitting and receiving circuit board 10 with a space 31 therebetween, and the side wall portions 33 extend from the four sides of the ceiling portion 32 to the transmitting and receiving circuit board 10),
wherein the inner wall includes a material (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0042 and 0048; protrusion 35 are formed integrally with the shield case 30, and may be made of either resin with surface plated with metal, or metal) configured to at least partially reflect the electromagnetic energy radiating from the electronic component (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0042 and 0048; with the configuration in which the plurality of protrusions 35 is provided, a radio wave signal spreads from the transmitting and receiving circuit to the ceiling surface 32a of the shield case 30, and the signal is reflected by the ceiling surface 32a and the protrusions 35, which are made of metal), and
wherein the inner wall includes a structure (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0042 and 0048; protrusion 35) adapted to interfere with at least one of the radiated or reflected electromagnetic energy (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0042 and 0048; due to the periodic arrangement of the protrusions, propagation of certain directional components of an electromagnetic wave along the ceiling surface 32a is restrained in a certain frequency range. The protrusions can be used for shielding against a radio wave from outside, preventing undesirable coupling between circuit components, or preventing an unwanted resonance in a closed shield space).
Regarding claim 2, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Inoue teaches wherein the structure covers at least 10% of a surface of the inner wall (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0040, 0042 and 0045; protrusions 35 covers majority of a ceiling portion 32).
Regarding claim 3, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Inoue teaches wherein the structure covers at least 50% of a surface of the inner wall (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0040, 0042 and 0045; protrusions 35 covers majority of a ceiling portion 32).
Regarding claim 4, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Inoue teaches wherein: the structure includes one or more elongated protrusions or recesses (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0048; plurality of protrusions 35 is provided); and the one or more elongated protrusions or recesses have a ridge shape (Figure 3; the protrusion 35 has a ridge shape).
Regarding claim 5, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as described above. Further, Inoue teaches wherein: the one or more elongated protrusions or recesses have a cross-section when cut substantially rectangular to a direction of elongation; and the cross-section has a shape based on at least one of a truncated cone, a pyramid, a rectangle, or a trapezoid (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0035; cross section diagram of protrusion; can be seen from Figure 3; the protrusion cross section has a shape of a trapezoid).
Regarding claim 10, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as described above. Further, Inoue teaches wherein the one or more elongated protrusions or recesses are distributed equidistantly on the inner wall (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0041; a plurality of protrusions 35, which are periodically arranged, and radio wave absorption sheets 36 are disposed at their respective areas on the ceiling surface 32).
Regarding claim 12, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Inoue teaches wherein at least part of the structure is adapted to be arranged substantially opposite to and facing the electronic component when assembled (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0044; radio wave absorption sheet 36 absorbs a radio wave that spreads from the transmitting and receiving circuit board 10 to the ceiling surface 32a of the shield case 30. The radio wave absorption sheet 36 is attached to an area of the ceiling surface 32a that opposes the active components 12 of the aforementioned transmitting and receiving circuit).
Regarding claim 14, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Inoue teaches wherein at least part of the structure is integral with the shielding element (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0042; protrusions 35 are formed integrally with the shield case 30).
Regarding claim 18, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Inoue teaches
wherein: the inner wall includes an inner top wall (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0043; active components 12 of the transmitting and receiving circuit are mounted on the area of transmitting and receiving circuit board 10) and at least four inner side walls substantially rectangular to the inner top wall (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0040; the shield case 30 is formed in a box-like shape having an opening at an upper side thereof. The shield case 30 includes the ceiling portion 32 and side wall portions 33); the inner wall forms a substantially hollow portion for at least partially housing the electronic component when assembled (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0040; ceiling portion 32 opposes the transmitting and receiving circuit board 10 with a space 31 therebetween, and the side wall portions 33 extend from the four sides of the ceiling portion 32 to the transmitting and receiving circuit board 10); the structure is arranged on the inner top wall and not on the at least four inner side walls (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0043; the area of the transmitting and receiving circuit board 10 where the passive components 13 and the circuit pattern sections 14 are mounted in a state where the transmitting and receiving circuit board 10 and the shield case 30 are assembled); and the shielding element has an outer shape of a cuboid (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0040; the shield box 30 is formed in a box-like shape).
Regarding claim 19, Inoue teaches a system for a radar (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0032; radar device), the system comprising: the shielding element of claim 1 (Figure 3; please refer to the claim rejection above regarding claim 1); and the electronic component (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0037; transmitting and receiving circuit includes active components 12, passive components 13, and circuit pattern sections 14).
Regarding claim 20, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 19, as described above. Further, Inoue teaches wherein the electronic component is at least one of an integrated circuit (IC) or a transmission line (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0035; the main portion of the high-frequency communication device 1 includes the transmitting and receiving circuit board 10 and a shield case 30. Paragraph 0037; transmitting and receiving circuit includes active components 12, passive components 13, and circuit pattern sections 14).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-9, 11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue, as applied in the claims above.
Regarding claim 6, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as described above. Further, Inoue teaches wherein the one or more elongated protrusions or recesses have a height (Figure 9 and Paragraphs 0054 and 0055; the effects of the height of the plurality of protrusions 35 on restraining of radio wave propagation is explained, and graphs of FIGS. 9 and 10 show that as the value of h/.lamda..sub.o increases, the electric field strength decreases, or the restraining effect increases. In other words, the value of h/.lamda..sub.o must be greater than a certain value to maximize the propagation restraining effect by the periodic arrangement of the protrusions. In particular, in the configuration of FIG. 9, the broadband capability required for UWB compliance may not be sufficient when the value of h/.lamda..sub.o is small).
Inoue teaches all of the limitations as disclosed in this claim, however, Inoue does not explicitly teach a height in a range of 0.2 mm to 4 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to design the height of the protrusion in the range of 0.2mm to 4mm because Applicant has not disclosed that having a specific height provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with reasonable and desired protrusion height because the height determines how much undesired radiation/signal is being penetrated. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Inoue to obtain the invention as specified in this claim.
Regarding claim 7, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as described above. Further, Inoue teaches wherein the one or more elongated protrusions or recesses have a height (Figure 9 and Paragraphs 0054 and 0055; the effects of the height of the plurality of protrusions 35 on restraining of radio wave propagation is explained, and graphs of FIGS. 9 and 10 show that as the value of h/.lamda..sub.o increases, the electric field strength decreases, or the restraining effect increases. In other words, the value of h/.lamda..sub.o must be greater than a certain value to maximize the propagation restraining effect by the periodic arrangement of the protrusions. In particular, in the configuration of FIG. 9, the broadband capability required for UWB compliance may not be sufficient when the value of h/.lamda..sub.o is small).
Inoue teaches all of the limitations as disclosed in this claim, however, Inoue does not explicitly teach a height in a range of 1.0 mm to 2 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to design the height of the protrusion in the range of 1.0 mm to 2 mm because Applicant has not disclosed that having a specific height provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with reasonable and desired protrusion height because the height determines how much undesired radiation/signal is being penetrated. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Inoue to obtain the invention as specified in this claim.
Regarding claim 8, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as described above. Further, Inoue teaches wherein the one or more elongated protrusions or recesses have a maximum width parallel to the inner wall (Figures 3 and 9, Paragraph 0041; a plurality of protrusions 35, which are periodically arranged, and radio wave absorption sheets 36 are disposed at their respective areas on the ceiling surface 32. It can be seen from Figure 3 that the protrusion has a designed width parallel to the inner wall).
Inoue teaches all of the limitations as disclosed in this claim, however, Inoue does not explicitly teach in a range of 0.2 mm to 4mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to design the maximum width in a range of 0.2 mm to 4mm because Applicant has not disclosed that having a specific width provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with reasonable and desired protrusion width. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Inoue to obtain the invention as specified in this claim.
Regarding claim 9, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as described above. Further, Inoue teaches wherein the one or more elongated protrusions or recesses have a maximum width parallel to the inner wall (Figures 3 and 9, Paragraph 0041; a plurality of protrusions 35, which are periodically arranged, and radio wave absorption sheets 36 are disposed at their respective areas on the ceiling surface 32. It can be seen from Figure 3 that the protrusion has a designed width parallel to the inner wall).
Inoue teaches all of the limitations as disclosed in this claim, however, Inoue does not explicitly teach in a range of 1.0 mm to 2 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to design the maximum width in a range of 1.0 mm to 2 mm because Applicant has not disclosed that having a specific width provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with reasonable and desired protrusion width. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Inoue to obtain the invention as specified in this claim.
Regarding claim 11, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as described above. Further, Inoue teaches wherein the one or more elongated protrusions or recesses are arranged on the inner wall (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0041; a plurality of protrusions 35, which are periodically arranged, and radio wave absorption sheets 36 are disposed at their respective areas on the ceiling surface 32).
Inoue teaches all of the limitations as disclosed in this claim, however, Inoue does not explicitly teach in at least one of a curved shape or a zig-zag shape. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to design the protrusion in at least one of a trapezoid shape, which is a cropped zig-zag shape, because Applicant has not disclosed that having a specific shape provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with reasonable and desired protrusion shape, such as a trapezoid. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Inoue to obtain the invention as specified in this claim.
Regarding claim 15, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Inoue discloses the claimed invention except for wherein at least part of the structure is provided as a separate piece. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to separate at least part of the structure, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Inoue teaches wherein: the shielding element does not include absorber material (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0042; protrusions 35 are formed integrally with the shield case 30. The structure may be made of either resin or metal, and in the former case, the surface is plated with metal, etc., after die forming. Thus the shielding element does not include an absorber material); and the absorber material is defined as a material adapted to attenuate electromagnetic energy of at least 10 dB/cm at a frequency of the electromagnetic energy in a range from 2 GHz to 120 GHz, when measured by insertion loss on an absorber material thickness of 0.5 cm to 1.5 cm (Examiner asserts that since the protrusions 35 are made of resin coated with metal, or made with metal, it does not have the absorber material. As also can be seen from Figure 8 and Paragraphs 0050 and 0051; absorber is not provided). Since Inoue discloses no absorber has been provided, thus the absorber material is design choice, because Applicant has not disclosed that having a absorber material provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well without any reasonable kind of absorber material. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Inoue to obtain the invention as specified in this claim.
Regarding claim 17, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Inoue teaches wherein: the shielding element does not include absorber material (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0042; protrusions 35 are formed integrally with the shield case 30. The structure may be made of either resin or metal, and in the former case, the surface is plated with metal, etc., after die forming. Thus the shielding element does not include an absorber material); and the absorber material is defined as a material adapted to attenuate electromagnetic energy of at least 30° dB/cm at a frequency of the electromagnetic energy in a range from 76 GHz to 81 GHz, when measured by insertion loss on an absorber material thickness of 0.9 cm to 1.1 cm (Examiner asserts that since the protrusions 35 are made of resin coated with metal, or made with metal, it does not have the absorber material. As also can be seen from Figure 8 and Paragraphs 0050 and 0051; absorber is not provided). Since Inoue discloses no absorber has been provided, thus the absorber material is design choice, because Applicant has not disclosed that having a absorber material provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well without any reasonable kind of absorber material. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Inoue to obtain the invention as specified in this claim.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue, as applied in the claims above, further in view of Tainaka et al. (US 20220132711 A1 and Tainaka hereinafter).
Regarding claim 13, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Inoue does not explicitly teach wherein the inner wall includes a thermal region arranged to be in thermal contact with the electronic component when assembled. In an analogous art, Tainaka teaches wherein the inner wall includes a thermal region arranged to be in thermal contact with the electronic component when assembled (Paragraphs 0041 and 0043; first radio-absorbing and heat-dissipative gel 9 is comprised of, for example, a mixture of a resin member, a heat dissipation filler, and a radio-wave absorption filler. The resin member consists of, for example, silicone-type resin. The heat dissipation filler is composed of, for example, a thermally conductive powder, such as an oxidized powder, a nitride powder, a carbide power, or another material powder. The oxidized powder can be made of alumina, the nitride powder can be made of boron nitride, and the carbide power can be made of silicon carbide. The heat dissipation filler can be composed of one type of material or a mixture of several types of material). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Inoue and Tainaka because it provides level of thermal conductivity (Tainaka, Page 2).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue, as applied in the claims above, further in view of Naonori et al. (JP 2008005176 A and Naonori hereinafter).
Regarding claim 21, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 19, as described above.
Inoue does not explicitly teach wherein the shielding element is adapted to have an isolation of at least 35 dB. In an analogous art, Naonori teaches wherein the shielding element is adapted to have an isolation of at least 35 dB (Pages 6-7; isolation was measured. The frequency to be suppressed is around 77 GHz. As a result, as shown in FIG. 9, when the lid without the periodic structure is used, the deterioration is about 15 dB compared to the case without the lid. On the other hand, when the periodic cover 2 is used, it is about 20 dB better than when the periodic cover 2 is not used). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Inoue and Naonori because it provides a semiconductor package having a periodic structure that has a higher electromagnetic wave shielding effect than a conventional periodic structure and can be easily manufactured (Naonori, Page 2).
Regarding claim 22, Inoue teaches all of the limitations of claim 19, as described above.
Inoue does not explicitly teach wherein the shielding element is adapted to have an isolation of at least 42 dB when measured at a frequency of 76.5 GHz. In an analogous art, Naonori teaches wherein the shielding element is adapted to have an isolation of at least 42 dB when measured at a frequency of 76.5 GHz (Pages 6-7; isolation was measured. The frequency to be suppressed is around 77 GHz. As a result, as shown in FIG. 9, when the lid without the periodic structure is used, the deterioration is about 15 dB compared to the case without the lid. On the other hand, when the periodic cover 2 is used, it is about 20 dB better than when the periodic cover 2 is not used). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Inoue and Naonori because it provides a semiconductor package having a periodic structure that has a higher electromagnetic wave shielding effect than a conventional periodic structure and can be easily manufactured (Naonori, Page 2).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seely et al. (US 5386204 A) discloses a high isolation microwave module includes a housing floor with mounting surfaces for placing microwave components and housing walls ending in housing wall ends coupled to and projecting from the housing floor. A lid including a lid plate and lid walls ending in lid wall ends projects from the lid plate. The lid walls extend toward the housing floor and the plurality of housing walls extend toward the lid plate but neither the lid wall ends nor the housing wall ends are coupled to the housing floor or lid plate, respectively. The irises and cavities act as a multi-section high pass filter to provide attenuation to a microwave signal passing through the module.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jing Gao whose telephone number is (571)270-7226. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am - 6pm 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 Alison Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jing Gao/
Examiner
Art Unit 2647