DETAILED ACTION
9Notice 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 .
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, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-11, 13 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duan et al. CN Patent Application Publication CN218275067U (cited by applicant, see attached machine translation for cited references).
Regarding Claim 1, Duan et al. teaches a conductive elastic component (Figs. 1-6), comprising:
a fixing portion (11 Fig. 2 P. 4), comprising a first section (see annotated Fig. 2 below), a second section (see annotated Fig. 2 below), and a third section (see annotated Fig. 2 below), wherein the first section, the second section, and the third section are bent and connected in sequence (as seen in annotated Fig. 2 below), and the first section corresponds to the third section (1st and 3rd sections parallel to each other and correspond to each other as seen in annotated Fig. 2 below); and
a bent extension portion (12 Fig. 2 P. 4), extending from the fixing portion (Fig. 2), and comprising a fourth section (see annotated Fig. 2 below), a fifth section (see annotated Fig. 2 below), and a sixth section (see annotated Fig. 2 below), wherein the fourth section, the fifth section, and the sixth section are bent and connected in sequence (as seen in annotated Fig. 2 below), the fourth section is connected to the second section (4th section connected to 2nd section through the 3rd section), the sixth section bends towards the fixing portion (6th section 1221 bends down towards 11 as seen in Fig. 2), such that the sixth section is located between the fourth section and the fifth section (as seen in annotated Fig. 2 below), and the sixth section is adapted to abut the fourth section (6th section / 1221 abuts 4th section/121 when in position B as seen in annotated Fig. 2 below) or the second section.
PNG
media_image1.png
1024
1416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Duan et al. teaches wherein the bent extension portion comprises a groove located between the fourth section and the fifth section (see annotated Fig. 2 above).
Regarding Claim 4, Duan et al. teaches wherein the fourth section extends in a direction away from a plane where the first section is located (4th section extends in direction away from plane of 11 as seen in annotated Fig. 2 above), the fifth section extends in a direction towards the plane where the first section is located (5th section extends in direction towards from plane of 11 as seen in annotated Fig. 2 above), and a projection of the fifth section on the plane where the first section is located is outside the first section (seen in annotated Fig. 2 above).
Regarding Claim 5, Duan et al. teaches wherein one of the first section and the third section comprises a clamping section (clamping plates 111 and 113 Fig. 2 P. 4), and the clamping section bends towards the other of the first section and the third section (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Duan et al. teaches an electronic device (Figs. 1-6), comprising:
a metal frame (42 Figs. 1, 6 P. 4);
a carrier (7 Figs. 5, 6 P. 5), adjacent to the metal frame (Figs. 5, 6);
an antenna (6 Figs. 1, 5, 6 P. 5), disposed at the carrier (Figs. 5, 6); and
at least one conductive elastic component (1 Figs. 1, 5, 6 P. 4, 5) disposed between the carrier and the metal frame (Figs. 1, 5, 6), wherein the at least one conductive elastic component comprises:
a fixing portion (11 Fig. 2 P. 4), comprising a first section (see annotated Fig. 2 above), a second section (see annotated Fig. 2 above), and a third section (see annotated Fig. 2 above), wherein the first section, the second section and the third section are bent and connected in sequence (as seen in annotated Fig. 2 above), and the first section corresponds to the third section (1st and 3rd sections parallel to each other and correspond to each other as seen in annotated Fig. 2 above); and
a bent extension portion (12 Fig. 2 P. 4), extending from the fixing portion, and comprising a fourth section (see annotated Fig. 2 above), a fifth section (see annotated Fig. 2 above), and a sixth section (see annotated Fig. 2 above), wherein the fourth section, the fifth section, and the sixth section are bent and connected in sequence (as seen in annotated Fig. 2 above), the fourth section is connected to the second section (4th section connected to 2nd section through the 3rd section), the sixth section bends towards the fixing portion (6th section 1221 bends down towards 11 as seen in Fig. 2), such that the sixth section is located between the fourth section and the fifth section (as seen in annotated Fig. 2 above), and the sixth section is adapted to abut the fourth section (6th section / 1221 abuts 4th section/121 when in position B as seen in annotated Fig. 2 above) or the second section,
wherein at least one of the first section and the third section of the at least one conductive elastic component is fixed to the carrier (fixed through 3 & 50 Fig. 5 P. 5), the first section or the third section contacts the antenna (1 contacts antenna 6 as seen in Figs. 1 & 5), and the bent extension portion connects to the metal frame (“The antenna 6 is abutted and connected, and the clamping and fixing part 11 of the elastic piece 1 is abutted and connected with the metal layer 42, and the antenna 6 is connected to the metal layer 42 through the elastic piece 1” P. 5 Figs. 1 & 5).
Regarding Claim 9, Duan et al. teaches wherein one of the first section and the third section comprises a first positioning portion (112 / 114 / contact protrusion 115 / 3 Fig. 2 P. 5), and the carrier comprises a second positioning portion corresponding to the first positioning portion (51, 52 better seen in Fig. 5 P. 5).
Regarding Claim 10, Duan et al. teaches wherein one of the first positioning portion and the second positioning portion is a protrusion (3 Fig. 5), the other of the first positioning portion and the second positioning portion is a hole (hole 52 Fig. 5), and the protrusion is adapted to be fixed in the hole (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 11, Duan et al. teaches wherein the bent extension portion comprises a groove located between the fourth section and the fifth section (see annotated Fig. 2 above).
Regarding Claim 13, Duan et al. teaches wherein the fourth section extends in a direction away from a plane where the first section is located (4th section extends in direction away from plane of 11 as seen in annotated Fig. 2 above), the fifth section extends in a direction towards the plane where the first section is located (5th section extends in direction towards from plane of 11 as seen in annotated Fig. 2 above), and a projection of the fifth section on the plane where the first section is located is outside the first section (seen in annotated Fig. 2 above).
Regarding Claim 14, Duan et al. teaches wherein one of the first section and the third section comprises a clamping section (clamping plates 111 and 113 Fig. 2 P. 4), the clamping section bends towards the other of the first section and the third section (Fig. 2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 6, 8, 12 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. CN Patent Application Publication CN218275067U (cited by applicant, see attached machine translation for cited references) and Li et al. CN Patent Application Publication CN218101743U (see attached machine translation for cited references).
Regarding Claim 3, Duan et al. teaches the conductive elastic component according to claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Duan et al. is silent on wherein a width of the bent extension portion is between 0.7 millimeters (mm) and 2 mm.
However, Li et al. teaches “the width w of the bracket 10 is 0.8mm-1.2mm” (Fig. 1 P. 4).
In this particular case, selecting a width of the bent extension portion is common and well known in the art as evident by Li et al. to ensure to meet the required strength while maintaining a compact size.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the width of the bent extension portion of Duan et al. to be between 0.7 mm and 2 mm based on the teachings of Li et al. as a result effect in order to ensure to meet the required strength while maintaining a compact size.
Regarding Claim 6, Duan et al. teaches the conductive elastic component according to claim 5 as shown in the rejection above.
Duan et al. is silent on wherein a minimum distance between the clamping section and one of the first section and the third section is 0.6 mm to 0.8 mm.
However, Li et al. teaches “the width w of the bracket 10 is 0.8mm-1.2mm” (Fig. 1 P. 4).
In this particular case, selecting a minimum distance between the clamping section and one of the first section and the third section is common and well known in the art as evident by Li et al. to ensure to meet the required strength while maintaining a compact size.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure a minimum distance between the clamping section and one of the first section and the third section of Duan et al. to be 0.6 mm to 0.8 mm based on the teachings of Li et al. as a result effect in order to ensure to meet the required strength while maintaining a compact size.
Regarding Claim 8, Duan et al. teaches wherein the at least one conductive elastic component comprises a plurality of conductive elastic components (101 & 102 Fig. 1 P. 4).
Duan et al. is silent on a distance between any two adjacent conductive elastic components among the conductive elastic components is less than 15 mm.
However, Li et al. teaches keeping an appropriate distance between components of 0.2mm (P. 5).
In this particular case, setting a distance between any two adjacent conductive elastic components is common and well known in the art in order to reduce the size of the device while maintaining sufficient distance between components.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure a distance between any two adjacent conductive elastic components of Duan et al. to be less than 15 mm based on the teachings of Li et al. as a result effect in order to reduce the size of the device while maintaining sufficient distance between components.
Regarding Claim 12, Duan et al. teaches the electronic device according to claim 7 as shown in the rejection above.
Duan et al. is silent on wherein a width of the bent extension portion is between 0.7 mm and 2 mm.
However, Li et al. teaches “the width w of the bracket 10 is 0.8mm-1.2mm” (Fig. 1 P. 4).
In this particular case, selecting a width of the bent extension portion is common and well known in the art as evident by Li et al. to ensure to meet the required strength while maintaining a compact size.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the width of the bent extension portion of Duan et al. to be between 0.7 mm and 2 mm based on the teachings of Li et al. as a result effect in order to ensure to meet the required strength while maintaining a compact size.
Regarding Claim 15, Duan et al. teaches the electronic device according to claim 7 as shown in the rejection above.
Duan et al. is silent on wherein a minimum distance between the clamping section and one of the first section and the third section is 0.6 mm to 0.8 mm.
However, Li et al. teaches “the width w of the bracket 10 is 0.8mm-1.2mm” (Fig. 1 P. 4).
In this particular case, selecting a minimum distance between the clamping section and one of the first section and the third section is common and well known in the art as evident by Li et al. to ensure to meet the required strength while maintaining a compact size.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure a minimum distance between the clamping section and one of the first section and the third section of Duan et al. to be 0.6 mm to 0.8 mm based on the teachings of Li et al. as a result effect in order to ensure to meet the required strength while maintaining a compact size.
Conclusion
The cited art in PTO-892 was found during the examiner's search, but was not relied upon for this office action. However it is still considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M BOUIZZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, 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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7893. 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.
/MICHAEL M BOUIZZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2845