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 .
Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.05.
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 4-6, 9-14 are withdrawn in view of the amendments thereto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 112 rejections to claims 1-14 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claims 1 and 9.
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.
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 1, 4-5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzumi et al. (US 10,070,529 – hereinafter, “Fukuzumi”) in view of Hasegawa et al. (US 11,444,010 – hereinafter, “Hasegawa”) in view of Dohi et al. (US 2015/0333096 – hereinafter, “Dohi”) and further in view of Yamanaka (US 7,872,868).
With respect to claims 1 and 8, Fukuzumi teaches (In Fig 4) a mounting board comprising: an electronic component (10A); a printed circuit board (20A) on which the electronic component is mounted and with a metal thin film (26a, 26b) and/or a resist (24a, 24b) formed on part of a surface of the printed circuit board (See Fig 4); wherein an area of the printed circuit board (20A) on which the electronic component is mounted has a distance-increasing structure (Lack of 24a, 24b, 26a, 26b) being predetermined and increasing a distance between the electronic component (10a) and the printed circuit board (20a, see Fig 4), and the electronic component includes a lead (12b) connected to an external circuit as a terminal, the printed circuit board (20a) further comprising: a first electrode (22b) formed on the surface of the printed circuit board and to which one end of the lead (12b) is electrically connected (See Fig 4); and a second electrode (22a) formed on the surface of the printed circuit board and to which a terminal other than the lead (12a) is electrically connected (See Fig 4).
Fukuzumi fails to specifically teach or suggest that the electronic component includes an electronic element and a package surrounding the electronic element, a heat dissipation component having heat dissipation properties and against which the electronic component is pressed with a bonding material sandwiched between the heat dissipation component and the electronic component, wherein the distance-increasing structure is a structure in which a thickness of the first electrode is thicker than a thickness of the second electrode, wherein the printed circuit board has multiple screw holes for enabling screwing, and is connectable to the heat dissipation component by passing screws through the multiple screw holes, and that the mounting board is part of an electric apparatus configured to perform power conversion of power supplied from a power supply (Cl. 8).
Hasegawa, however, teaches (In Fig 27) an electronic component (PKG) includes an electronic element (CPH) and a package (MR) surrounding the electronic element (See Fig 27), and a heat dissipation component (HS) having heat dissipation properties and against which the electronic component is pressed with a bonding material (BD11) sandwiched between the heat dissipation component and the electronic component (See Fig 27), wherein a mounting board (PB1) is part of an electric apparatus (inverter, see Fig 1) configured to perform power conversion of power supplied from a power supply.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hasegawa with that of Fukuzumi, such that in Fukuzumi the electronic component includes an electronic element and a package surrounding the electronic element, and a heat dissipation component having heat dissipation properties and against which the electronic component is pressed with a bonding material sandwiched between the heat dissipation component and the electronic component, wherein a mounting board is part of an electric apparatus configured to perform power conversion of power supplied from a power supply, as taught by Hasegawa, since doing so would provide heat dissipation to the electronic component of Fukuzumi thus preventing breakdown and extending the life of the component of Fukuzumi.
With respect to the limitations, the distance-increasing structure is a structure in which a thickness of the first electrode is thicker than a thickness of the second electrode: Dohi teaches a thickness of a first electrode is thicker than a thickness of a second electrode (¶ 0074, “Specifically, the first electrode is formed thicker than the second electrode”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dohi with that of Fukuzumi such that, in Fukuzumi the distance-increasing structure is a structure in which a thickness of the first electrode is thicker than a thickness of the second electrode, as taught by Dohi, since doing so would reduce the amount of solder needed for one of the two electrodes (If electrode (22b) of Fukuzumi is thicker, then less solder (31b) is necessary).
With respect to the limitations the printed circuit board has multiple screw holes for enabling screwing, and is connectable to the heat dissipation component by passing screws through the multiple screw holes: Yamanaka teaches (In Fig 2) wherein a printed circuit board (4a) has multiple screw holes (One for each screw 1) for enabling screwing (Via screws 1), and is connectable to a heat dissipation component (5b) by passing screws through the multiple screw holes (See Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yamanaka with that of modified Fukuzumi such that in modified Fukuzumi the printed circuit board has multiple screw holes for enabling screwing, and is connectable to the heat dissipation component by passing screws through the multiple screw holes, as taught by Yamanaka, since doing so would further secure the heat dissipation component to the electronic component thus assuring that the two do not become separated during movement.
With respect to claim 4, Fukuzumi further teaches that the distance-increasing structure is a structure in which the metal thin film is not formed on at least part of an area to be a projection surface of the electronic component on the surface of the printed circuit board (See Fig 4, there is no metal thin film (26a, 26b) on a surface of the PCB (20a) where there is a projection of the component on the PCB).
With respect to claim 5, Fukuzumi further teaches that the distance-increasing structure is a structure in which a resist (24a, 24b) is not formed on at least part of an area to be a projection surface of the electronic component on the surface of the printed circuit board (See Fig 4, there is no resist (24a, 24b) on a surface of the PCB (20a) where there is a projection of the component on the PCB).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzumi in view of Hasegawa in view of Dohi in view of Yamanaka and further in view of Oyama (JP H1041426).
With respect to claim 2, Fukuzumi as modified by Hasegawa, Dohi and Yamanaka teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein a distance between the electronic component and the printed circuit board increased by the distance-increasing structure is in a range of from 0.2 mm to 1.0 mm.
Oyama, however, teaches wherein a distance between an electronic component and a printed circuit board is in a range of from 0.2 mm to 1.0 mm (“the distance between the ball grid array package 1 and the printed wiring board 5 is about 0.85 mm”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Oyama with that of Fukuzumi, such that, in Fukuzumi a distance between the electronic component and the printed circuit board increased by the distance-increasing structure is in a range of from 0.2 mm to 1.0 mm, as taught by Oyama, since doing so would allow for the component to be far enough to avoid being damaged by the board while keeping the overall height of the apparatus to a minimum.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzumi in view of Hasegawa in view of Dohi in view of Yamanaka and further in view of Nagata (JP 08162726 – cited on the IDS filed 4/22/2024).
With respect to claim 6, Fukuzumi as modified by Hasegawa, Dohi, and Yamanaka teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the distance-increasing structure is a structure in which a recessed portion is formed on at least part of a projection surface of the electronic component on the surface of the printed circuit board.
Nagata, however, teaches (In Fig 3) wherein a distance-increasing structure is a structure in which a recessed portion (2) is formed on at least part of a projection surface of an electronic component (3) on the surface of the printed circuit board (1, see Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nagata with that of Fukuzumi such that, in Fukuzumi the distance-increasing structure is a structure in which a recessed portion is formed on at least part of a projection surface of the electronic component on the surface of the printed circuit board, as taught by Nagata, since doing so would allow for the electronic component to be a distance from the surface of the circuit board without increasing the distance from the bottom of the circuit board to the top of the component. Further, creating a notch in the circuit board will reduce the weight of the mounting board.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to claim 1 that, “Dohi does not recognize or address a problem in the art of mitigating damage to an electronic component caused by deformation of a board when a heat-dissipating member is fastened by screws and pressed against the board, as is the case with the invention of amended Claim 1.” (Present remarks page 6) the Examiner respectfully notes that there is no requirement that Dohi address a problem which is not expressly claimed.
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to claim 1 that, “Further, Yamanaka is merely relied on in the Office Action for its description of printed circuit board has multiple screw holes. See Fig. 2. Yamanaka, however, either alone, or in combination with the other cited references, also does not teach or suggest the above- discussed features of amended claim 1.” (Present remarks pages 6-7) the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the above-rejection to claim 1. Indeed, it is believed that Yamanaka in combination with Fukuzumi, Hasegawa and Dohi is believed to teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 1.
With respect to the Applicant’s remarks to claim 1 that, “Therefore, the cited references address technical problems significantly different from that of the claimed invention, and provide no motivation to combine these references in a manner that would result in the features of the claimed configuration.” (Present remarks page 7) the Examiner respectfully notes that, to the best of the Examiner’s knowledge, there is no requirement that references address like-kind technical problems in order for that reference to be valid. Further, it is noted that motivation to combine does not have to be explicitly provided in a reference and, in fact, “may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art”1.
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 ZACHARY M PAPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am - 6pm EST.
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, JAYPRAKASH Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/ZACHARY PAPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
1 MPEP 2143(G)
Prosecution Insights