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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 170a, 170b, and 170c, as shown in figure 1, 1182 and 1185, as shown in figure 11, 1253, as shown in figure 12, 1650, as shown in figure 16, 1730, as shown in figure 17. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the numeral “6346” should read –634b--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1 line 4, the phrase “a chicklet” should read --the chicklet--. Claims 2-14 include all the limitations of claim 1 and are objected to for the same reasons. In claim 7 line 3, the phrase “extends above”, should read –extends higher--. There should also be a period at the end of claim 7. Claim 8 includes all the limitations of claim 7 and is objected to for the same reasons. In claim 11 line 1, the phrase “claim 1” should read –claim 10--, since claim 11 modifies the standoffs first introduced in claim 10. Claim 15 should have a period at the end of the last line. Clams 16-18 include all the limitations of claim 15 and are objected to for the same reasons. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-6, 9, 12-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (6,478,623).
With regard to claim 1, Wu teaches, as shown in figures 1-6 and taught in column 2 lines 52-59: “A frame unit 4 configured to interface a chicklet 2 and a printed circuit board (PCB) (described in column 2 lines 52-59), the frame unit 4 comprising: at least one fixing member 44 configured to fix the frame unit 4 to the PCB; and an opening (interior of 4 in figure 1) configured to accept a chicklet 2 and configured such that electrical connections are formed between the chicklet 2 and the PCB beneath the frame unit 4; wherein the opening is configured to hold therein the chicklet 2”.
With regard to claim 2, Wu teaches: “The frame unit of claim 1”, as shown above.
Wu also teaches, as shown in figures 1-6 and taught in column 2 lines 60-63: “wherein the frame unit 4 is configured to make conductive electrical contact with the chicklet 2”.
With regard to claim 3, Wu teaches: “The frame unit of claim 2”, as shown above.
Wu also teaches, as shown in figures 1-6 and taught in column 2 lines 60-63: “wherein at least part of an edge of the opening is configured to make conductive electrical contact with the chicklet 2”.
With regard to claim 4, Wu teaches: “The frame unit of claim 1”, as shown above.
Wu also teaches, as shown in figures 1-6 and taught in column 3 lines 52-59: “wherein: the opening is configured to align with at least one PCB contact (where 34 are connected to the PCB, as taught in column 2 lines 52-59) for electrical coupling of the at least one PCB contact and at least one electrical connector 3 of the chicklet 2; and the opening is configured such that electrical connections are formed between the electrical connectors 3 and the PCB beneath the opening of the frame unit 4”.
With regard to claim 5, Wu teaches: “The frame unit of claim 4”, as shown above.
Wu also teaches, as shown in figures 1-6 and taught in column 2 lines 24-29: “wherein: at least part 40 of an edge of the opening is configured to flex for holding the chicklet 2; and at least part of the edge of the opening is configured to electromagnetically shield a signal which passes through the chicklet 2 and/or the at least one PCB contact”.
With regard to claim 6, Wu teaches: “The frame unit of claim 5”, as shown above.
Wu also teaches, as shown in figures 1-6: “further comprising at least one contact spring 40 at the edge of the opening for holding the chicklet 2 and/or for making electrical contact to the chicklet”.
With regard to claim 9, Wu teaches: “The frame unit of claim 6”, as shown above.
Wu also teaches, as shown in figures 1-6: “wherein the opening has a short axis (upper-left to lower-right in figure 3) and a long axis (lower-left to upper-right in figure 1), the contact springs 40 being along the long axis”.
With regard to claim 12, Wu teaches: “The frame unit of claim 1”, as shown above.
Wu also teaches, as shown in figures 1-6 and taught in column 3 lines 29-33: “wherein the at least one fixing member 44 includes a guiding element (shown below) extending below the frame unit 4, the guiding element configured to mate with a hole of the PCB”.
PNG
media_image1.png
434
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 13, Wu teaches: “The frame unit of claim 12”, as shown above.
Wu also teaches, as shown in figures 1-6 and taught in column 3 lines 29-33: “wherein the guiding element includes at least one chamfered edge (guiding element above includes at least one chamfered edge) configured to make contact with the hole of the PCB for fixing the frame unit to the PCB”.
With regard to claim 19, Wu teaches, as shown in figures 1-6 and taught in column 2 lines 52-59: “A connection assembly comprising a printed circuit board (PCB) having at least one PCB contact (described in column 2 lines 52-59); at least one chicklet 2 electrically connected to the at least one PCB contact of the PCB; and at least one frame unit 4, each frame unit 4 holding the respective at least one chicklet 2, each frame unit 4 configured to interface the chicklet 2 and the PCB, the frame unit 4 comprising: at least one fixing member 44 configured to fix the frame unit 4 to the PCB; and an opening (interior of 4 in figure 1) configured to accept the chicklet 2 and configured such that electrical connections are formed between the chicklet 2 and the PCB beneath the frame unit 4; wherein the opening is configured to hold therein the chicklet 2”.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (6,478,623).
With regard to claim 15, Wu teaches, as shown in figures 1-6 and taught in column 2 lines 52-59: “A frame strip 4 comprising: a… frame unit 4 configured to interface a chicklet 2 and a printed circuit board (PCB) (described in column 2 lines 52-59), each frame unit 4 including: at least one fixing member 44 configured to fix the frame unit to the PCB; and an opening (interior of 4 in figure 1) configured to accept a chicklet 2 and configured such that electrical connections are formed between the chicklet 2 and the PCB beneath the frame unit 4; wherein the opening is configured to hold therein the chicklet 2”.
Wu does not teach: “plurality of connected frame units”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the opening of the frame unit to form a plurality of connected from units in order to be able to mount a group of connectors together on the circuit board. Also, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claims 10-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (6,478,623) in view of Harting et al. (6,312,287).
With regard to claim 10, Wu teaches: “The frame unit of claim 1”, as shown above.
Wu does not teach: “wherein the at least one fixing member includes one or more standoffs which extends below the frame unit, wherein the one or more standoffs is at least one of solderable or weldable to form electrical connections to the PCB”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Harting teaches, as shown in figures 1-5 and taught in column 3 lines 49-50: “wherein the at least one fixing member 15 includes one or more standoffs 6 which extends below the frame unit 4, wherein the one or more standoffs 6 is at least one of solderable or weldable to form electrical connections to the PCB 5”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Harting with the invention of Wu in order to provide room for solder flowing (Harting, column 3 lines 49-50).
With regard to claim 11, Wu teaches: “The frame unit of claim 1”, as shown above.
Wu does not teach: “wherein the one or more standoffs are configured to provide a uniform distance between the frame unit and the PCB”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Harting teaches, as shown in figures 1-5 and taught in column 3 lines 49-50: “wherein the one or more standoffs 6 are configured to provide a uniform distance between the frame unit 4 and the PCB 5”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Harting with the invention of Wu in order to provide room for solder flowing (Harting, column 3 lines 49-50).
With regard to claim 16, Wu teaches: “The frame strip according to claim 15”, as shown above.
Wu does not teach: “further comprising a groove between two adjoining frame units configured for separation of the two adjoining frame units”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Harting teaches, as shown in figures 1-5: “further comprising a groove 17 between two adjoining frame units 16 configured for separation of the two adjoining frame units 16”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Harting with the invention of Wu in order to insert extra shielding between the frame units (Harting, column 3 lines 31-34).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (6,478,623) in view of Crotty (2011/0299262).
With regard to claim 14, Wu teaches: “The frame unit of claim 1”, as shown above.
Wu does not teach: “wherein the frame unit comprises a solderable and/or weldable material; the material including at least one of beryllium copper, a tin coated metal such as tin coated copper, a tin coated stainless steel, or a tin coated copper alloy”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Crotty teaches, as taught in paragraphs 9 and 36, forming a frame unit (shield, as taught in paragraphs 9 and 36) from tin-plated metal that is solderable to a printed circuit board. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine these features of Crotty with the invention of Wu in order to provide good shielding (Crotty, paragraph 36).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M KRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-0277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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.
/JUSTIN M KRATT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights