DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on September 16, 2024.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Circuit Board Assembly and Electronic Device with Reduced Thickness.” The examiner reminds the applicant that this is merely a suggestion, and the applicant may provide an alternative title so long as it is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17-22 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chuang, et al. (US-20190081422-A1).
With respect to Claim 17:
Chuang discloses electronic device, comprising:
a housing (Fig. 7), comprising:
a bottom wall;
a side wall arranged at a periphery of the bottom wall; and
a rear cover connected to the side wall, wherein the bottom wall, the side wall, and the rear cover enclose an accommodating space (Fig. 7); and
a circuit board assembly (Fig. 8) arranged in the accommodating space (Fig. 7), the circuit board assembly comprising:
a first elastic piece 52 (Fig. 8);
a first circuit board 1 provided with an avoidance opening 11, the first circuit board comprising a first surface (Fig. 8: the upper surface) and a second surface (Fig. 8: the lower surface) arranged opposite to each other (Fig. 8), wherein the first elastic piece 52 is arranged on the first surface (Figs. 8-9);
a second circuit board 2 at least partially arranged on the second surface in a stacking manner (Fig. 8); and
a connector assembly 5 arranged on the second circuit board (Fig. 8), wherein the connector assembly is at least partially located in the avoidance opening 11 (Fig. 9), and wherein a height of the connector assembly 5 is greater than a height of the first elastic piece 52 (Figs. 8-9).
With respect to Claim 18:
Chuang discloses the electronic device of claim 17.
Chuang also discloses wherein the avoidance opening 11 runs through the first circuit board 1 in a thickness direction of the first circuit board 1 (Fig. 8).
With respect to Claim 19:
Chuang discloses the electronic device of claim 17.
Chuang also discloses wherein the second circuit board 2 comprises a first region 21 that extends beyond an edge on a side of the first circuit board 1 (Figs. 8-9), and the connector assembly 5 is arranged in the first region (Fig. 9).
With respect to Claim 20:
Chuang discloses the electronic device of claim 17.
Chuang also discloses wherein a part of the connector assembly 5 is higher than the first surface in a thickness direction of the first circuit board 1 (Fig. 9).
With respect to Claim 21:
Chuang discloses the electronic device of claim 17.
Chuang also discloses wherein the second circuit board 2 comprises a third surface (Fig. 8: the surface of 21 pointing away from circuit board 1) that is a side surface of the second circuit board 2 facing away from the first circuit board 1 (Figs. 8-9).
With respect to Claim 22:
Chuang discloses the electronic device of claim 17.
Chuang also discloses wherein the connector assembly 5 at least partially overlaps with the first circuit board 1 in a thickness direction of the first circuit board 1 (Fig. 9).
With respect to Claim 31:
Chuang discloses the electronic device of claim 17.
Chuang also discloses wherein both the first circuit board 1 and the second circuit board 2 are rigid circuit boards ([0022]).
With respect to Claim 32:
Chuang discloses the electronic device of claim 17.
Chuang also discloses the electronic device further comprising a display screen arranged on a side of the bottom wall away from the accommodating space, wherein an edge of the display screen bends toward a side of the rear cover and is connected to the side wall (Fig. 7).
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 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang, et al. (US-20190081422-A1) in view of Zuo, et al. (CN-107483068-A).
With respect to Claim 23:
Chuang discloses the electronic device of claim 17.
Chuang does not explicitly disclose wherein the circuit board assembly further comprises a card holder arranged on the second surface, wherein the card holder is configured to receive a subscriber identity module (SIM) card.
However, card holders, specifically subscriber identity module (SIM) card holders, are well known in the art. For example, Zuo teaches an electronic device comprising a circuit board 1 with a base 4 attached to the circuit board 1 (Figs. 2 and 8), wherein a SIM card holder 6 is inserted into the base, and the SIM card holder 6 receives a SIM card 14 (Figs. 2-3).
Thus, Chuang and Zuo each disclose circuit boards with connector assemblies attached on a surface. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the SIM card holder of Zuo could be combined with the circuit board of Chuang because it would allow the circuit board to be used in cell phone applications. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the modification.
With respect to Claim 24:
Chuang in view of Zuo discloses the electronic device of claim 23.
Zuo also discloses wherein a first socket 4 is provided on the side wall (Fig. 2), and the card holder 6 is further arranged at the first socket 4 (Fig. 2).
With respect to Claim 25:
Chuang in view of Zuo discloses the electronic device of claim 24.
Chuang also discloses the electronic device further comprising an interface unit 41 (Fig. 6), wherein at least a part of the interface unit 41 is arranged on a side of the first circuit board 1 facing away from the first surface (Fig. 6), and the interface unit 41 is configured to receive a plug of an external device ([0028]).
With respect to Claim 26:
Chuang in view of Zuo discloses the electronic device of claim 25.
Chuang also discloses wherein a second socket is provided on the side wall (Fig. 6), and the interface unit 41 is further arranged at the second socket (Fig. 6).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang, et al. (US-20190081422-A1) in view of Hale, et al. (US-20220286543-A1).
With respect to Claim 33:
Chuang discloses the electronic device of claim 17.
Chuang does not explicitly disclose the electronic device further comprising a speaker driver electrically connected to the first elastic piece.
However, Hale teaches an electronic device with a speaker driver 624.
Thus, Chuang and Hale each disclose electronic devices related to mobile devices. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the speaker driver of Hale could be combined with the elastic piece of Chuang because it would increase the scope of function of the invention. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the modification.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang, et al. (US-20190081422-A1) in view of Guo, et al. (CN-113540786-A).
With respect to Claim 34:
Chuang discloses the electronic device of claim 17.
Chuang does not explicitly disclose an antenna radiator electrically connected to the first elastic piece.
However, Guo teaches an electronic device comprising an antenna radiator 41.
Thus, Chuang and Guo each disclose electronic devices. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the antenna radiator of Guo could be combined with the elastic piece of Chuang because it would increase the scope of function of the invention. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the modification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-30 and 35-36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 27, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting “wherein a part of the interface unit is higher than the first surface in a thickness direction of the first circuit board, and a distance of the interface unit that is higher than the first surface is less than a height of the first elastic piece in the thickness direction of the first circuit board,” as recited in claim 27, in conjunction with ALL the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 27. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 27, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 17 is allowable.
Claim 28 is dependent on claim 27 and would therefore be allowable.
Regarding Claim 29, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting “wherein the second circuit board comprises a third surface that is a side surface of the second circuit board facing away from the first circuit board, wherein the circuit board assembly further comprises a second elastic piece arranged on the third surface, and wherein a height of the second elastic piece in a thickness direction of the second circuit board is less than a distance of the card holder or the interface unit above the third surface,” as recited in claim 29, in conjunction with ALL the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 29. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 29, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 17 is allowable.
Regarding Claim 30, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting “wherein a quantity of second circuit boards is two, wherein two second circuit boards are spaced apart, and wherein the card holder is arranged between the two second circuit boards,” as recited in claim 30, in conjunction with ALL the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 30. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 30, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 17 is allowable.
Regarding Claim 35, allowability resides, at least in part, with the prior art, taken alone or in combination not showing or fairly teaching or suggesting “wherein the circuit board assembly further comprises a second elastic piece arranged on the first surface, wherein the electronic device further comprises a speaker driver electrically connected to the second elastic piece,” as recited in claim 35, in conjunction with ALL the remaining limitations of the base claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest these limitations as substantially described in claim 35. These limitations, in combination with remaining limitations of claim 35, are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record, before claim 17 is allowable.
Claim 36 is dependent on claim 35 and would therefore be allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amara Anderson whose telephone number is (703)756-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 09:00 - 17:00 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, Abdullah A. Riyami can be reached at (571)270-3119. 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.
/AMARA ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2831 /ABDULLAH A RIYAMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights