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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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.
5. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi JP2008-306322A (cited by applicant) in view of Saito JP2013004361A see Google translation JP2013004361A - Circuit configuration conversion device using coaxial connector with switch - Google Patents
6. Consider claim 1. Adachi teaches a substrate connection structure (18, 19) (note: “for a vehicle-mounted” is considered intended use and not given any patentable weight) communication device, comprising: a network access device (reads on wireless circuits 12 and 13 accessing the radio network, note also the second to last paragraph states it could be a mobile phone which includes network access besides radio) having at least a wireless communication function; a main substrate (8) on which the network access device is mounted (fig 4); an antenna (16) configured to be used for the wireless communication performed by the network access device; and an RF connector (16 or 36) mounted on the main substrate and connected to the antenna (via circuit 14); wherein the main substrate (8) is configured to be connected to a sub substrate (9) having an optional communication function (wireless circuits 12 and 13) via a coaxial connector, the antenna (15) is configured to be used for the optional communication function performed by the sub substrate, and the antenna (15) is connected to the optional communication function via the coaxial connector when the main substrate is connected to the sub substrate (From Adachi…When it is necessary to additionally connect the other radio circuits 12 and 13 to the common part shown in FIG. 4, as shown in FIG. 5, a circuit board on which these radio circuits 12 and 13 are mounted 9, one end of each of the coaxial cables 18, 38 is connected to the coaxial connectors 17, 37, and the other end of each of the coaxial cables 18, 38 is connected to the coaxial cables 16, 36 of the circuit board 8, respectively. Then the antenna 15 is connected to the connection terminal 23, the capacitors 21 and 29 are removed from the circuit board 8, and the termination resistors 19 and 35 are also removed. By doing so, the antenna 15 is connected to the terminal a of the antenna changeover switch 14, and the radio circuits 11, 12, and 13 are connected to the terminals b, c, and d of the switch 14, respectively. Therefore, the radio circuits 11 to 13 are alternatively connected to the antenna 15 by switching the antenna selector switch 14….) Adachi fails to teach the substrates overlap. However, Saito et al teaches such (see abstract and circuit boards 3 and 5 in fig 1a) which uses coaxial connectors to connect and disconnect the overlaping circuit boards. It would have been obvious, before the effective date to overlap the substrates of Adachi as taught by Saito in order to save space.
7. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi JP2008-306322A in view of Saito JP2013004361A further in view of Hiromasa US 10728723.
8. Consider claim 2. The combination of Adachi and Saito, fail to teach wherein the optional communication function is a vehicle-to-X communication function. However, such is well known in the art as taught by Hiromasa (see abstract.) It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to substitute the ECU taught by Hiromasa for one of the additional optional wireless circuits (12 and 13) taught by Adachi to allow for vehicle-to-vehicle communication thus avoiding potentially dangerous collisions.
9. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi JP2008-306322A in view of Saito JP2013004361A in view of Hiromasa US 10728723 further in view of Mori JP-2019086300A see Google translation JP2019086300A - Positioning device - Google Patents
10. Regarding claim 3, the combination fails to teach wherein the network access device has a communication function for satellite positioning, and the optional communication function is a communication function for the satellite positioning with higher accuracy than the communication function
for the satellite positioning of the network access device. However, it is well known that GPS is more accurate that location accuracy used in V to X communication as taught by Mori (see abstract). Given that one of the optional wireless communication units 11 is a V to X unit as taught by Hiromasa, it would have been obvious, before the effective date, to substitute a GPS positioning device taught by Mori for the second optional communication unit 12, thus giving the system better location capabilities.
11. Claim 4 is 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 prior art of record fails to teach or make obvious wherein the network access device is configured to disable the communication function for the satellite positioning of the network access device when the sub substrate is connected to the main substrate, and the network access device is configured to use satellite positioning information obtained from the communication function of the sub substrate as called for in dependent claim 4.
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sugahara et al US2023/0232589 A1 teaches (fig1) an electronic control device used in an automobile has internal printed circuit boards (21-23) that are stacked or overlapped with each other to save space.
Yang WO-2024033704-A1 teaches an assembly for stacking a plurality of circuit boards of an electronics package is provided. The assembly may comprise a chassis structure, a first plurality of printed circuit board (PCB), and a second plurality of PCBs, where the second plurality of PCBs are configured to be coupled to connectors of the first plurality of PCBs that are accessible via connection access points in the chassis structure.
Chou US 20220232701-A1 teaches a main circuit board (101) having a top face and a bottom face opposite to the top face. A sub-circuit board (102) is anchored to the main circuit board at an edge region surrounding an opening. Multiple sub-components (10,20) are arranged on the top and bottom faces of the sub-circuit board. The sub-circuit board is extended outward from the bottom face of the circuit board through the opening.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7499. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th from 530am to 3pm and Fri from 530am to 10am.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew D Anderson, can be reached at telephone number 5712724177. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/CURTIS A KUNTZ/ Primary examiner, Art Unit 2646