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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Rejection of claim 1, the limitation “ at least one first and second printed circuit board and at least one first connecting element for mechanical and/or electrical connection between the at least one first and second printed circuit board” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
Note that applicant elected species as mentioned in fig. 3 wherein 110 and 120 are first and second circuit boards and requires a bridge board as well as requires two push button wherein a first push button between first circuit board and the bridge circuit and a second push button between second circuit board and the bridge circuit in order to completer circuit to electrically connect first and second circuit boards. None of the underlying essential subject matter are not present in the claim 1.
Note that limitation recites at least one first connecting element defines one or more. Claim is failed to satisfy underlying essential structure based on one first connecting element as push button, it requires at least two push buttons. Furthermore, Claim is also failed to mention structure of bridge circuit and how each of first and second push button attached to bridge circuit as well as first and second circuit board.
Additionally, it is failed to discloses how the connecting element has an electrically conductive material at least in part so that the connecting element allows an electrical connection between the first and the second printed circuit boards.
Therefore, proper clarification is required.
Rejection of claim 8, the limitation “ wherein a bridge printed circuit board is provided for mechanically and/or electrically connecting two printed circuit boards, wherein the two printed circuit boards are arranged side-by-side, wherein the bridge printed circuit board has a first or second push button element at each of the two ends thereof.” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
It does not make sense to ordinary skill in the art to consider this limitation wherein no relationship provided between two printed circuit boards and first and second circuit boards in claim 1; and the bridge printed circuit board requires a first push button at first end connected to first circuit board and second push button at other end of bridge printed circuit board connected to second circuit board. None of them clearly described. Without that, applicant would not perform as mentioned in the specification.
Further see explanation in claim 1.
Therefore, claim 8 is ambiguous and not clear.
Rejection of claims 1, 7-8, claims 1, 7-8 are rejected by the same reason applied to rejection of claim 1 above.
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-AlA) 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.
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.
Note: Note that claims consider to incomprehensive by not providing missing underlying essential structure required to perform as mentioned in the specification; rejection under USC 102 and USC 103 to advance prosecution; however, rejection under USC 112 sufficient enough for rejection. however, proper clarification is required under rejection of USC 112 above to consider the rejection under USC 102 and USC 103.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirohisa et al. (Cited Reference JP2009205916, herin referred to as Hirohisa) in view of Sobhani et al. (US5525065, herein referred to as Sobhani) or Tanaka et al. (US20090061656, herein referred to as Tanaka).
Rejection of claim 1, Hirohisa discloses a printed circuit board unit (figures 1-7, paragraphs 16-20), comprising
first and second printed circuit board (at least one 1A and 1B) and at least one first connecting element for mechanical and/or electrical connection between the at least one first and second printed circuit board (a connecting element between 1 and 1B in the figures) ,
wherein the connecting element is in the form of a push button (see figures, also specification mentions that the dimensions are set so that the umbrella portion is caught by the elastic pressure in fitting groove and does not easily come out of the fitting groove) .
Hirohisa clearly does not discloses the push button has a first and a second push button element, the first push button element is in the form of a recess or dish, and the second push button element is in the form of a projection or head and is configured such that it can be connected to the first push button element; and wherein the connecting element has an electrically conductive material at least in part so that the connecting element allows an electrical connection between the first and the second printed circuit boards.
Sobhani or Tanaka discloses the push button has a first and a second push button element, the first push button element is in the form of a recess or dish, and the second push button element is in the form of a projection or head and is configured such that it can be connected to the first push button element; and wherein the connecting element has an electrically conductive material at least in part so that the connecting element allows an electrical connection between the first and the second printed circuit boards (see electrical connection in figure 2 of Sobhani; or see electrical connection in figures of Tanaka).
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the printed circuit board unit of Hirohisa to have electrical connection arrangement as taught by Sobhani or Tanaka between boards of Hirohisa to provide a board-to-board connector which can perform simultaneous electrical and mechanical connection and achieve reduction in thickness as possible to minimize area occupied by overall device.
Rejection of claim 7, Hirohisa in view of Sobhani or Tanaka disclose the printed circuit board unit according to claim 1, wherein the printed circuit boards are in the form of planar printed circuit boards, in the form of 3D printed circuit boards, produced in an injection-molding process, or in the form of 3D mechatronic integrated device printed circuit boards (see planer boards 1A and 1B in figures of Hiroshima, also , the product is what it is not how it is made by different methods such as 3D printing, injection molding, plating, coating….etc; therefore, methods do not get any patentable weight) .
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirohisa, Sobhani or Tanaka, and in view of Zahn et al. (Cited Reference DE20215720 herein referred to as Zahn).
Rejection of claim 8, Hirohisa in view of Sobhani or Tanaka discloses the printed circuit board unit according to claim 1, but fail to discloses wherein a bridge printed circuit board is provided for mechanically and/or electrically connecting the first and second printed circuit boards, wherein the first and second printed circuit boards are arranged side-by-side, wherein the bridge printed circuit board has a first as the push button at first end of bridge printed circuit board connected to the first circuit board and a second push button at first end of bridge printed circuit board connected to the first circuit board.
Zahn discloses a bridge printed circuit board is provided for mechanically and/or electrically connecting the first and second printed circuit boards, wherein the first and second printed circuit boards are arranged side-by-side, wherein the bridge printed circuit board has a first push button as the push button at first end of bridge printed circuit board connected to the first circuit board and a second push button at first end of bridge printed circuit board connected to the first circuit board (see figure 3 where bridging circuit board provided electrical connection to side-by-side flat ceramic devices and paragraph 0010 mentioning “push-button” connection).
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the printed circuit board unit of Hirohisa in view of Sobhani or Tanaka to have bridge connection arrangement as taught by Zahn between first and second circuit board of Hirohisa to electrically connect to each other to communicate with each other or transfer signal, power, or ground to first and second circuit boards as well as electronic devices mounted on the boards.
Pertinent Prior Arts
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the enclosed PTO-892 form for the citation of pertinent arts in the present case, all of which disclose various board to board interconnects assemblies.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Also, note that claims has major 112 issues which not properly addressed as mentioned in the USC 112 rejection and still continue without filling gap in structure that required under MPEP 2172.01. Rejection under USC 103 is not required. None of the arguments would consider under USC 103 prior to overcoming major issue presented in rejection under USC 112.
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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARESH PAGHADAL whose telephone number is (571)272-5251. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:00PM, Monday - Thursday.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached on (571)272-2342. 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.
/PARESH PAGHADAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights