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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 19, 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 9-10, 12, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liebes et al. (US 5034802 A) and in further view of Scholz (US 4565314 A)
Regarding Claim 1 – Liebes teaches an electronic component configured to be mounted on a surface that defines a plane (Figs 2a-2b; 20, 29; Liebes states “substrate 29… has been fabricated in accordance with this invention to receive SMD 20”), the electronic component comprising: at least one electronic chip housed within package, wherein the electronic component includes one or more aligning structures that are on an outer surface of the electronic component (Fig 2a; 20, 22a; Liebes states “a small semiconductor surface which is encapsulated in a relatively small package” and “Formed within body 23a is mechanical registration means 22a”), when the first aligning surface areas and the second aligning surface areas are provided against counter surfaces fixed on the surface and conforming at least partly to the form of the respective aligning surface areas (Figs 2a-2b; 22a, 22b; Liebes states “Registration means 22a can have sloped sides matching a mating feature 22b on the substrate” and “registration means 22b which matches registration means 22a”).
Liebes does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more aligning structures define at least two first aligning surface areas in a first direction and at least two second aligning surface areas in a second direction, wherein the first direction and the second direction are parallel to the plane defined by the surface and perpendicular in relation to each other, and wherein the first aligning surface areas and the second aligning surface areas are spaced from each other in such a manner that at least a rotation of the electronic component about an axis perpendicular to the plane defined by the surface is prevented.
Scholz teaches the one or more aligning structures define at least two first aligning surface areas in a first direction and at least two second aligning surface areas in a second direction (Figs 1A-1B; 4; Scholz states “A single indexing ball insures only the x and y coordinate alignment of the indents”), wherein the first direction and the second direction are parallel to the plane defined by the surface and perpendicular in relation to each other (Fig 1A; 1, 4; Scholz states “manipulated in the x and y directions until each ball seats into an indent”), and wherein the first aligning surface areas and the second aligning surface areas are spaced from each other in such a manner that at least a rotation of the electronic component about an axis perpendicular to the plane defined by the surface is prevented (Fig 2; 20; Scholz states “a unique orientation is guaranteed”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Liebes with the one or more aligning structures define at least two first aligning surface areas in a first direction and at least two second aligning surface areas in a second direction, wherein the first direction and the second direction are parallel to the plane defined by the surface and perpendicular in relation to each other, and wherein the first aligning surface areas and the second aligning surface areas are spaced from each other in such a manner that at least a rotation of the electronic component about an axis perpendicular to the plane defined by the surface is prevented as taught by Scholz to provide x and y direction alignment while preventing rotation and ensuring a unique orientation of the electronic component relative to the substrate.
Regarding Claim 9 – Liebes in view of Scholz teaches the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein the one or more aligning structures is configured as a protrusion protruding from the outer surface or a recess extending from the outer surface into the electronic component (Liebes Fig 2a; 22a; Liebes states “Registration means 22a… need not be a depression, but rather can be a protuberance or a combination of depressions and protuberances”).
Regarding Claim 10 – Liebes in view of Scholz teaches the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein the one or more aligning structures is configured as a section of a cylinder, a section of a cone, a pyramid, a section of a pyramid, a cut pyramid, a section of a cut pyramid, a section of a sphere, an ellipsoid dome, a cube, a cuboid, a prism, or a cut triangular prism (Scholz states “The shape of the indent may vary widely, e.g. that of a cone, cube, cylinder, pyramid, etc.”).
Regarding Claim 12 – Liebes in view of Scholz teaches the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first aligning surface areas, the second aligning surface areas or a third aligning surface area has a three-dimensional shape (Scholz states “The shape of the indent may vary widely, e.g. that of a cone, cube, cylinder, pyramid, etc.”).
Regarding Claim 16 – Liebes teaches a circuit board comprising: a surface that defines a plane, wherein the surface of the circuit board is configured to receive an electronic component to be mounted on the surface (Figs 2a-2b; 20, 29; Liebes states “substrate 29… has been fabricated… to receive SMD 20 of FIG. 2a”), the electronic component comprising: at least one electronic chip housed within package, wherein the electronic component is provided with one or more aligning structures that are formed on an outer surface of the electronic component (Fig 2a; 20, 22a; Liebes states “semiconductor surface which is encapsulated in a relatively small package” and teaches “mechanical registration means 22a”), when the first aligning surface areas and the second aligning surface areas are provided against counter surfaces fixed on the surface and conforming at least partly to the form of the respective aligning surface areas (Figs 2a-2b; 22a, 22b; Liebes states “Registration means 22a can have sloped sides matching a mating feature 22b on the substrate” and “registration means 22b which matches registration means 22a”), and wherein the surface is provided with at least one aligning counter structure, the at least one aligning counter structure or parts of the at least one aligning counter structure comprise counter surfaces conforming at least partly to the form of the respective aligning surface areas in the electronic component for aligning the electronic component on the circuit board (Figs 2a-2b; 22a, 22b; Liebes states “registration means 22b which matches registration means 22a”).
Liebes does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more aligning structures define at least two first aligning surface areas in a first direction and at least two second aligning surface areas in a second direction, wherein the first direction and the second direction are parallel to the plane defined by the surface and perpendicular in relation to each other, and wherein the first aligning surface areas and the second aligning surface areas are formed and spaced from each other in such a manner that at least a rotation of the electronic component about an axis perpendicular to the plane defined by the surface is prevented.
Scholz teaches the one or more aligning structures define at least two first aligning surface areas in a first direction and at least two second aligning surface areas in a second direction (Figs 1A-1B; 4; Scholz states “x and y coordinate alignment of the indents”), wherein the first direction and the second direction are parallel to the plane defined by the surface and perpendicular in relation to each other (Fig 1A; 1, 4; Scholz states the substrates are “manipulated in the x and y directions”), and wherein the first aligning surface areas and the second aligning surface areas are formed and spaced from each other in such a manner that at least a rotation of the electronic component about an axis perpendicular to the plane defined by the surface is prevented (Fig 2; 20; Scholz states “a unique orientation is guaranteed”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Liebes with the one or more aligning structures define at least two first aligning surface areas in a first direction and at least two second aligning surface areas in a second direction, wherein the first direction and the second direction are parallel to the plane defined by the surface and perpendicular in relation to each other, and wherein the first aligning surface areas and the second aligning surface areas are formed and spaced from each other in such a manner that at least a rotation of the electronic component about an axis perpendicular to the plane defined by the surface is prevented as taught by Scholz to provide x and y direction alignment while preventing rotation and ensuring a unique orientation of the electronic component relative to the circuit board.
Regarding Claim 17 – Liebes in view of Scholz teaches the circuit board according to claim 16, wherein the aligning structure is part of the outer surface of the electronic component (Liebes Fig 2a; 20, 22a; Liebes states “FIG. 2a depicts the underside of one embodiment of an SMD 20” and teaches “mechanical registration means 22a”).
Claims 2-7, 11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liebes et al. (US 5034802 A) in view of Scholz (US 4565314 A) and in further view of Yamasaki et al. (US 6828667 B2)
Regarding Claim 2 – Liebes in view of Scholz teaches the electronic component according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more aligning structures further define a third aligning surface area in a third direction that is perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, and as to the plane defined by the surface (Figs 2, 5-6; 23A, 23B, 32A; Yamasaki states “The board mounting part 51 of the present embodiment includes the outer frame 23A and the projection 23B that are orthogonal to each other”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Liebes in view of Scholz with the one or more aligning structures further define a third aligning surface area in a third direction that is perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, and as to the plane defined by the surface as taught by Yamasaki to accurately position and stably seat the electronic component in the direction perpendicular to the circuit board.
Regarding Claim 3 – Liebes in view of Scholz and Yamasaki teaches the electronic component according to claim 2, further comprising one aligning structure, wherein each one of the first aligning surface areas, the second aligning surface areas or the third aligning surface area comprises a part of the outer surface of the electronic component in the area of the aligning structure (Yamasaki Figs 1-3; 51, 23A, 23B; Yamasaki teaches mounting board 51 having outer frame 23A and projection 23B, with 23B “formed unitarily with the leg 23”).
Regarding Claim 4 – Liebes in view of Scholz and Yamasaki teaches the electronic component according to claim 2, further comprising at least two aligning structures, wherein each one of the first aligning surface areas, the second aligning surface areas or the third aligning surface area comprises in each case a part of the outer surface of one of the aligning structures (Yamasaki Figs 1-3; 51, 23A, 23B; Yamasaki states “The board mounting parts 51 are disposed on facing edges of the four edges constituting the outer periphery of the case 22”).
Regarding Claim 5 – Liebes in view of Scholz teaches the electronic component according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more aligning structures are provided in a part of the electronic component made from a dimension accurate material.
Yamasaki teaches the one or more aligning structures are provided in a part of the electronic component made from a dimension accurate material (Figs 1-4; 23, 51; Yamasaki states “The outer frame 23A has a frame shape, and thus, a deviation of the lateral bending position is small, thus allowing the frame to be bent easily and accurately. Therefore, the projection 23B… is consequently positioned accurately”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Liebes in view of Scholz with the one or more aligning structures are provided in a part of the electronic component made from a dimension accurate material as taught by Yamasaki to accurately form and position the aligning structure relative to the electronic component.
Regarding Claim 6 – Liebes in view of Scholz and Yamasaki teaches the electronic component according to claim 5, wherein the one or more aligning structures are provided in a part of the electronic component made from at least one of a metal material, a ceramic material, or a plastic material (Yamasaki Figs 1-3; 23, 51, Yamasaki states “fixtures made of metal plate”).
Regarding Claim 7 – Liebes in view of Scholz and Yamasaki teaches the electronic component according to claim 6, wherein each aligning surface area has a predetermined three-dimensional shape (Scholz Figs 1A-1B; 4; Scholz states “cone, cube, cylinder, pyramid”), whereby the aligning surface areas form in each case a pair of aligning surface areas in the respective direction in such a manner that the electronic component is configured to be aligned in each of the directions with respect to the surface (Scholz Figs 1A-1B; 4, 5; Scholz states “x and y coordinate alignment”), when the aligning surface areas are provided against respective counter surfaces fixed to the surface (Liebes Figs 2a-2b; 22a, 22b; Liebes states “registration means 22b which matches registration means 22a”).
Regarding Claim 11 – Liebes in view of Scholz teaches the electronic component according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a cap, such that at least one of the aligning structures is provided in the cap.
Yamasaki teaches a cap, such that at least one of the aligning structures is provided in the cap (Figs 1-3; 2B3; Yamasaki states “fixture mounted as to cover the case 22” and “the projection 23B… is formed unitarily with the leg 23”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Liebes in view of Scholz with a cap, such that at least one of the aligning structures is provided in the cap as taught by Yamasaki to integrate the mounting and alignment structure with the cover of the electronic component.
Regarding Claim 15 – Liebes in view of Scholz teaches the electronic component according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more aligning structures provided in the electronic component define aligning surface areas in the direction of each one of three dimensions in such a manner that they enable aligning the electronic component in all three dimensions with respect to the surface comprising respective counter surfaces.
Yamasaki teaches the one or more aligning structures provided in the electronic component define aligning surface areas in the direction of each one of three dimensions in such a manner that they enable aligning the electronic component in all three dimensions with respect to the surface comprising respective counter surfaces (Figs 5-6; 23A, 23B, 32A, 32B; Yamasaki states “The projections 23B are inserted into the holes 32B” and “the outer frames 23A… are parallel with an upper surface of the board 31”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Liebes in view of Scholz with the one or more aligning structures provided in the electronic component define aligning surface areas in the direction of each one of three dimensions in such a manner that they enable aligning the electronic component in all three dimensions with respect to the surface comprising respective counter surfaces as taught by Yamasaki to prevent displacement and accurately position the electronic component relative to the circuit board.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liebes et al. (US 5034802 A) in view of Scholz (US 4565314 A) and Yamasaki et al. (US 6828667 B2) in further view of Bell (US 4570343 A)
Regarding Claim 8 – Liebes in view of Scholz and Yamasaki teaches the electronic component according to claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic component is configured to be aligned at an alignment inaccuracy of 0.1 degrees or less at least in the first direction and in the second direction.
Bell teaches the electronic component is configured to be aligned at an alignment inaccuracy of 0.1 degrees or less at least in the first direction and in the second direction (Figs 1-3; 10, 30, 60; Bell states “Axes X--X and Y--Y are orthogonal”, “adjustment of the sensor orientation to very close tolerances, for example 0.01 degree of arc” and “Similar precision can be achieved… about the Y--Y axis”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Liebes in view of Scholz and Yamasaki with the electronic component is configured to be aligned at an alignment inaccuracy of 0.1 degrees or less at least in the first direction and in the second direction as taught by Bell to precisely orient and stabilize the electronic component at a selected orientation.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liebes et al. (US 5034802 A) in view of Scholz (US 4565314 A) and in further view of Mark et al. (GB 2570004 A)
Regarding Claim 13 – Liebes in view of Scholz teaches the electronic component according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic chip is orientation-sensitive and comprises an axis of interest, and wherein the aligning surface areas are configured to align at least the axis of interest with respect to the surface.
Mark teaches the electronic chip is orientation-sensitive and comprises an axis of interest (Figs 2-4, 8; 4, 5; Mark states “The sensor may be any type of sensor which is direction sensitive” and “The accelerometer 5 is configured to measure acceleration along a first sensing axis SZ”), and wherein the aligning surface areas are configured to align at least the axis of interest with respect to the surface (Figs 5-7; 12, 18; Mark states “the angular orientation of the sensor housing 3 about the first housing axis Z1 determines the orientation of the first sensing axis SZ” and “the orientation of the sensor housing 3… is defined by the position of the first locating aperture 18”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Liebes in view of Scholz with the electronic component according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic chip is orientation-sensitive and comprises an axis of interest, and wherein the aligning surface areas are configured to align at least the axis of interest with respect to the surface as taught by Mark to establish a predetermined orientation of the sensing axis relative to the mounting surface.
Regarding Claim 14 – Liebes in view of Scholz and mark teaches the electronic component according to claim 13, wherein the electronic chip comprises at least one of a following: an accelerometer configured to measure acceleration, a gyroscope configured to measure angular rotation, or a magnetometer (Figs 2-4; 4, 5; Mark states “accelerometer 5 is configured to measure acceleration along a first sensing axis SZ, a second sensing axis SY and a third sensing axis SX”).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liebes et al. (US 5034802 A) in view of Scholz (US 4565314 A) and in further view of Sherman (US 8057248 B1)
Regarding Claim 18 – Liebes in view of Scholz teaches the circuit board according to claim 16, but does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one aligning counter structure extends through the circuit board in such a manner that a same counter structure is configured to be used for aligning the circuit board on an external module.
Sherman teaches at least one aligning counter structure extends through the circuit board in such a manner that a same counter structure is configured to be used for aligning the circuit board on an external module (Figs 18-21; 15, 100, 105; Sherman states “alignment holes extend through said printed circuit board”, “the sockets 105 are aligned with the alignment holes 15” and “retention device 100 is… a separate structure from the printed circuit board 12”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Liebes in view of Scholz with at least one aligning counter structure extends through the circuit board in such a manner that a same counter structure is configured to be used for aligning the circuit board on an external module as taught by Sherman to maintain alignment between the circuit board and an external module using a common alignment structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)270-7246. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:30.
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 at (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.
/ADITYA SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights