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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendment filed on 03/09/2026 has been considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20120218727; “Kim” hereinafter) in view of Choi (US 20150325529; “Choi” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a circuit board assembly, comprising: a circuit board (“printed circuit board 10”, par. [0069], fig. 4), wherein the circuit board comprises a first surface (upper surface of the PCB 10) and a second surface (lower surface of the PCB 10) that are disposed opposite to each other; electronic module (30); a shielding cover (100), wherein the shielding defines accommodation space (space enclosed by the shielding case 100, fig. 4 and 12), a recess (1121) is provided on a surface of the shielding cover facing the first surface (a recess 1121 is formed in the lower surface of the flange 1120 of the shielding case 100, fig. 12), and the recess runs through the shielding cover and is communicated with the accommodation space (fig. 12); and a conductive structure (200, fig. 12), wherein the conductive structure (200) is located in the recess (1121) and connected between a top wall of the recess and the first surface (fig. 12).
Kim does not explicitly disclose the electronic module being a chip, wherein the chip is disposed on the second surface; and orthographic projection of the conductive structure on the circuit board at least partially falls within an orthographic projection range of the chip on the circuit board.
Mugiya teaches circuit board assembly comprising a chip (114; “ built-in component 114 can be …an integrated circuit (IC)”, par. [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit board assembly of Kim to incorporate a chip, and orthographic projection of the conductive structure on the circuit board at least partially falls within an orthographic projection range of the chip on the circuit board as taught by Mugiya, because such modification increases the functionality of the circuit assembly.
Choi teaches a printed circuit board assembly comprising: a printed circuit board (10; “the first substrate 10, various kinds of substrates (for example, but not limited to, a ceramic substrate, a printed circuit board (PCB)”, par. [0029]); an electronic device (1; “The electronic devices 1 may include various devices such as a passive device 1a and an active device 1b, but not limited thereto, and may be any electronic devices 1 that may be mounted on a substrate”, par. [0025], it implies the electronic device 1 could be a chip); a shielding member (40) disposed on a first surface (upper surface of the PCB 10, fig. 4G) of the printed circuit board (10) (fig. 4G); wherein the electronic device is disposed on a second surface of the printed circuit board (10) (fig. 4G); and orthographic projection of a conductive structure (ground pad 19 that electrically connected the shielding member 40 to the PCB 10) on the circuit board at least partially falls within an orthographic projection range of the chip on the circuit board (annotated fig. 4G below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit board assembly of Kim in view of Mugiya to relocate the electronic device on the second surface such that an orthographic projection of the conductive structure on the circuit board at least partially falls within an orthographic projection range of the electronic device on the circuit board as taught by Choi, because such modification increases the component density of the circuit assembly. Further, rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi (relied on Choi) discloses wherein the conductive structure (19) is connected between the shielding cover (40) and the circuit board (10).
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi (relied on Kim, fig. 12) discloses wherein the recess comprises the top wall (upper wall of the recess 1121), a first side wall (a first lateral inclined wall of the recess 1121), and a second side wall (a second lateral inclined wall of the recess 1121), the top wall is connected between the first side wall and the second side wall (fig. 12), the conductive structure is in contact with the top wall, and the conductive structure is spaced apart from both the first side wall and the second side wall (fig. 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
358
611
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi (relied on Kim, fig. 12) discloses the circuit board assembly as claimed in claim 3.
Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance between the conductive structure and the first side wall is in a range from 0.2 mm to 0.5 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the size of conductive structure or rearrange the conductive structure such that a distance between the conductive structure and the first side wall is in a range from 0.2 mm to 0.5 mm, since changing the shape of the conductive structure or rearrangement of the existing conductive structure appears to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice, and such a modification would have involved a mere change in size or rearrangement of existing part and would not involve any inventive concept and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi (relied on Kim, fig. 12) discloses wherein a first solder pad (12) is disposed on the first surface, and the first solder pad is in contact with the conductive structure (200), or the first solder pad and the conductive structure are connected via a solder material (14) (fig. 12).
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi (relied on Kim, fig. 12) discloses wherein the first solder pad (12) is in contact with the conductive structure (200).
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi (relied on Kim) discloses wherein the circuit board assembly further comprises an electronic component (41, 43, 44), the electronic component is disposed on the first surface and is located in the accommodation space (fig. 10), and the conductive structure (200) is spaced apart from the electronic component (fig. 10, 12)
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi (relied on Kim) discloses the circuit board assembly as claimed in claim 7.
Kim in view of Mugiya does not explicitly disclose wherein a spacing between the conductive structure and the electronic component is in a range from 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to relocate the conductive structure such that a spacing between the conductive structure and the electronic component is in a range from 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 9, Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi (relied on Kim) discloses the circuit board assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the shielding cover comprises a main body (110), wherein the main body defines the accommodation space (space enclosed by the shield case 100).
Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi does not explicitly disclose wherein a length of the conductive structure is less than or equal to a length of the main body.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to change the size of the conductive structure, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi discloses the circuit board assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi does not explicitly disclose wherein the conductive structure comprises a plurality of substructures, the plurality of substructures are spaced apart from each other, each substructure is connected between the top wall of the recess and the first surface, and a distance between two adjacent substructures is less than or equal to 1.2 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to separate a single conductive structure into two or more substructures, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Newin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177 (BdPatApp&Int 1969). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to relocate the plurality of conductive structures such that a distance between two adjacent substructures is less than or equal to 1.2 mm, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi (relied on Kim) discloses wherein a type of the conductive structure (200) comprises one of a conductive pad, conductive foam, and conductive fabric (200 is a conductive support which is elastically deformable, fig. 6 and 12; par. [0096]- [0115]).
Regarding claim 12, Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi discloses the circuit board assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi does not explicitly disclose wherein a width of the recess is in a range from 0.6 mm to 1.5 mm, and a height of the recess is in a range from 0.2 mm to 0.75 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to change the size of the recess such that a width of the recess is in a range from 0.6 mm to 1.5 mm, and a height of the recess is in a range from 0.2 mm to 0.75 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi discloses the circuit board assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi does not explicitly disclose wherein a width of the conductive structure is in a range from 0.6 mm to 1.5 mm, and a height of the conductive structure is in a range from 0.6 mm to 1.7 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to change the size of the conductive structure such that a width of the conductive structure is in a range from 0.6 mm to 1.5 mm, and a height of the conductive structure is in a range from 0.6 mm to 1.7 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi (relied on Kim) discloses wherein the shielding cover (100) comprises a main body (110) and a flange (1120) (fig. 12) , the main body defines the accommodation space (space enclosed by the shield case 100), the flange is connected to one end of the main body (110) in a peripheral direction of the main body (flange 1120 is extended outward from the main body 110, fig. 12), an angle is formed between the flange and the main body (fig. 12), the flange is connected to the first surface (fig. 12), a recess (1121) is provided on a surface of the flange facing the first surface, and the recess (1121) runs through the flange in a width direction of the flange and is communicated with the accommodation space (fig. 12).
Regarding claim 17, Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi (relied on Kim) discloses wherein the conductive structure (200) is connected to the shielding cover (100) (fig. 12).
Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi does not explicitly disclose the conductive structure separated from the circuit board. However, Kim teaches the conductive structure (200) is deformable (par. [0096]- [0115]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to rearrange the conductive structure such that the conductive structure separated from the circuit board, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art and is just a matter of design choice. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 18, Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi (relied on Kim) discloses wherein the conductive structure (200) is connected to the circuit board(10) (fig. 12).
Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi does not explicitly disclose the conductive structure separated from the shielding cover.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to rearrange the conductive structure such that the conductive structure separated from the shielding cover, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art and is just a matter of design choice. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 19, Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi discloses the circuit board assembly as claimed in claim 3.
Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance between the conductive structure and the second side wall is in a range from 0.2 mm to 0.5 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the size of conductive structure or rearrange the conductive structure such that a distance between the conductive structure and the second side wall is in a range from 0.2 mm to 0.5 mm, since changing the shape of the conductive structure or rearrangement of the existing conductive structure appears to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice, and such a modification would have involved a mere change in size or rearrangement of existing part and would not involve any inventive concept and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 20, Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi discloses the circuit board assembly as claimed in claim 3.
Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi does not explicitly disclose wherein both a first distance between the conductive structure and the first side wall and a second distance between the conductive structure and the second side wall are in a range from 0.2 mm to 0.5 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the size of conductive structure or rearrange the conductive structure such that both a first distance between the conductive structure and the first side wall and a second distance between the conductive structure and the second side wall are in a range from 0.2 mm to 0.5 mm, since changing the shape of the conductive structure or rearrangement of the existing conductive structure appears to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice, and such a modification would have involved a mere change in size or rearrangement of existing part and would not involve any inventive concept and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (in view of Mugiya and Choi, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Lo et al. (US 20130284510; “Lo” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 16, Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi discloses the circuit board assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi does not explicitly disclose an electronic device, wherein the electronic device comprises a housing and the circuit board assembly according to claim 1, and the circuit board assembly is accommodated in the housing.
Lo teaches an electronic device, wherein the electronic device (24’) comprises a housing (26) and an circuit board assembly (2) (fig. 6), and the circuit board assembly is accommodated in the housing (fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the circuit board assembly of Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi to incorporate the assembly in a housing of an electronic device as suggested by Lo because such modification helps to provide EMI shield to the circuit board assembly and the components disposed on/in the circuit board assembly.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (in view of Mugiya and Choi, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Li et al. (US 20250316892; “Li” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 21, Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi discloses the circuit board assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi does not explicitly disclose wherein a type of the conductive structure comprises a combination of a conductive pad, conductive foam, and conductive fabric.
Li teaches an electronic device, wherein the electronic device (200) comprises a cover (102), an circuit board assembly (100), and a conductive structure (117); the conductive structure comprises a combination of a conductive pad, conductive foam, and conductive fabric. (par. [0058], [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the circuit board assembly of Kim in view of Mugiya and Choi to have the conductive structure comprises a combination of a conductive pad, conductive foam, and conductive fabric as suggested by Li because such modification provides an electrical connection with low resistance (Par. [0046).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13 and 15-21 have been considered but are moot; whereas new rejections have been presented to read on the amended claim language.
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 SAGAR SHRESTHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1236. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-6:30 pm, Monday-Friday.
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 Parker can be reached at (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.
/SAGAR SHRESTHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
January 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights