DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “the GND network in the PCB body is wirings for grounding in a wiring layer of the PCB” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anhalt et al. [US 5,333,100], in view of NAKAJIMA [WO 2014/002238].
Regarding claim 1, Anhalt et al., disclose a PCB assembly (10, figures 1-6), comprising: a PCB body (136, figure 6) and a grounding region (a region covered a thickness of the PCB 136, figure 6) on a side surface of the PCB body, wherein the grounding region is connected to a GND portions (two extended portions connect the grounding region to the top and bottom surfaces of the PCB 136, figure 6) in the PCB body, wherein the grounding region is formed a metal plate (summary of the invention, col. 1) connected to two GND portions in the PCB body.
Anhalt et al., disclose the claimed invention except for the GND network in the PCB is wirings for grounding in a wiring layer of the PCB, and the grounding region is a metal plate formed by the GND network in the PCB body extending to the side surface of the PCB body.
NAKAJIMA discloses a printed wiring board (110, figures 1 and 8-9) comprising a GND network (112 and 114, figures 1 and 8) in the PCB is wirings for grounding in a wiring layer (213 & 215, figures 1 and 8-9) of the PCB, and a grounding region (132/122/142, figures 1 and 9) is a metal plate formed by the GND network in the PCB body extending to the side surface of the PCB body.
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a ground structure of NAKAJIMA in a printed wiring board of Anhalt et al., in order to improve grounding in a PCB assembly.
Regarding claim 3, Anhalt et al., in view of NAKAJIMA, disclose wherein at least one grounding region (figure 6) is provided on the side surface of the PCB body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10, and 12-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Neither cited references nor the prior art of record alone or in combination, discloses, teaches or render suggest obvious that a cuboid mounting box body having an opening on one side, a grounding plate placed over the opening of the mounting box body, and a conductive component in contact with a grounding region of a PCB is provided inside the grounding plate.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-10 and 12-15 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.
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 Hung S. Bui whose telephone number is (571)272-2102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8am-5pm.
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, Allen L. Parker can be reached on (303) 297-4722. 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.
/HUNG S. BUI/Primary Examiner, 2841/2800