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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 lines 5-6 cites “and configured to at least a portion of the printed circuit board”. It’s not understood what is the function of the shielding member relative to the circuit board. For the purpose of examination, the office will interpret this limitation as “and configured to cover at least a portion of the printed circuit board”.
Claims 2-15 are rejected by virtue of dependency to claim 1.
Claim 16 lines 4-5 cites “and configured to at least a portion of the printed circuit board”. It’s not understood what is the function of the shielding member relative to the circuit board. For the purpose of examination, the office will interpret this limitation as “and configured to cover at least a portion of the printed circuit board”.
Claims 17-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency to claim 16.
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, 3-5, 10, 15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihata (US 20100208447; “Nishihata”, in view of Tanabe et al (US 5552700; “Tanabe” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Nishihata teaches: an electronic device comprising:
a housing (15 and 17, fig. 3) provided with a receiving part (17) therein and comprising a polymer resin (¶[0036]);
a printed circuit board (6, fig. 3) disposed in the receiving part (fig. 5); a connector (2, fig. 3) connected to the printed circuit board (fig. 5,¶ [0037]); and
a shielding member (7, 9 11, figs. 3-4) disposed in the receiving part (fig. 5) and configured to at least a portion of the printed circuit board (fig. 5),
wherein the shielding member comprises a first region (see annotated fig. 5 below for claim 4) and a second region (11 fig. 5) disposed to have a height difference in a vertical direction with respect to the first region (fig. 5), and wherein the connector is grounded with respect to the shield member (¶[0037]).
Nishihata does not explicitly teach:
wherein the connector comprises a ground pin that is in contact with the second region.
However, Tanabe teaches:
a connector (33, fig. 5A) comprises a ground pin (18, figs. 3, 5A-5C) that is in contact with a region (i.e. second region 16, fig. 8A) of a shield member (16 and 17, fig. 7A, col. 5, lines 63-67; col. 6, lines 1-4)).
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 connector of Nishihata and include a ground pin as taught by Tanabe configured to Nishihata’s architecture, such that a ground pin is added to the connector (2) comprises that is in contact with Nishihata’s second region (11), in order to establish a direct ground connection between the shielding member and the connector, so that the ground connection provides a low-resistance route for unwanted electrical noise currents to leave the shield, while a steady zero-volt reference point, which stabilizes circuits and stops voltage differences from causing malfunctions. The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Chen. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143)
Regarding claim 3, Nishihata in view of Tanabe, teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Nishihata further teaches:
wherein at least a portion of the second region is disposed to overlap the connector and the printed circuit board in the vertical direction (fig. 5 teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 4, Nishihata in view of Tanabe, teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Nishihata further teaches:
wherein the receiving part comprises a support (see annotated fig. 5 below) protruding from a bottom surface, and the shielding member comprises a third region (see annotated fig. 5 below) disposed to have a height difference in the vertical direction with respect to the first region (see annotated fig. 5 below), wherein the third region is disposed on the support (fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
482
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Nishihata in view of Tanabe, teaches the limitations of claim 4, and Nishihata further teaches:
wherein the printed circuit board is disposed on the support, and the printed circuit board, the third region, and the support are screw-coupled to each other (fig. 3 and ¶[0041] teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 10, Nishihata in view of Tanabe, teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Nishihata further teaches:
PNG
media_image2.png
482
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the shielding member comprises a side surface portion extending from an edge of the first region (see annotated fig. 5 below), wherein the side surface portion is disposed to face an inner surface of the housing (see annotated fig. 5 below).
Regarding claim 15, Nishihata in view of Tanabe, teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Nishihata further teaches:
wherein the second region (11) has a groove shape (see 12-14, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 20, Nishihata in view of Tanabe, teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Nishihata further teaches:
wherein the receiving part comprises a support protruding from a bottom surface, and wherein the third region is disposed on the support (see annotated fig. 5 above for claim 4).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihata in view of Tanabe, and further in view of Min et al (US 20130058059; “Min” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 2, Nishihata in view of Tanabe, teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Nishihata further teaches:
wherein the shielding member is made of a metal material (¶[0038]).
Nishihata does not explicitly teach:
the shielding member is integrated with the housing by insert injection.
However, Min teaches:
a shielding member (10) is integrated with a housing (20) by insert injection (¶[0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Min’s teaching into the housing of Nishihata in view of Tanabe, such that the shielding member is integrated with the housing by insert injection, in order to integrally form the housing with the shield member, for the advantage of combining multiple materials into one step, eliminating the need of fastening means, saving time, and labor cost. Furthermore, However, in accordance to MPEP §2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the housing, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. die casting. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihata in view of Tanabe, and further in view of Ohhashi (US 20130072040; “Ohhashi” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 11, Nishihata in view of Tanabe, teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Nishihata further teaches:
wherein a hole (16, fig. 3) is arranged on a side of the housing to which the connector is coupled (fig. 1).
Nishihata in view of Tanabe does not explicitly teach:
wherein a second coupling groove is formed on an inner surface of the hole to which a protrusion is coupled, and wherein the protrusion is formed on a lower surface of the connector to protrude downward and is coupled to the second coupling groove.
However, Ohhashi teaches:
a second coupling groove (51, fig. 2) is formed on an inner surface of a housing hole (hole from where connector 15 protrudes from, fig. 2) to which a protrusion is coupled (¶[0040]), and wherein the protrusion is formed on a lower surface of the connector (fig. 2, ¶[0040]) to protrude downward (fig. 2) and is coupled to the second coupling groove (¶[0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Ohhashi’s teaching and modify the connector and housing of Nishihata in view of Tanabe, such that a second coupling groove is formed on an inner surface of the hole to which a protrusion is coupled, and wherein the protrusion is formed on a lower surface of the connector to protrude downward and is coupled to the second coupling groove, in order to provide a housing seal, for the advantage of providing a water-sealed enclosure (¶[0021]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihata in view of Tanabe, and further in view of Kojima (US 20090129035; “Kojima” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 12, Nishihata in view of Tanabe, teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Nishihata further teaches:
PNG
media_image3.png
882
482
media_image3.png
Greyscale
comprising a cover (15) coupled to the housing to cover the receiving part (fig. 1), wherein a first coupling groove is formed on an upper surface of the housing (see annotated fig. 3 below) to which a lower end of the cover is coupled (see annotated fig. 3 below).
Nishihata in view of Tanabe does not explicitly teach:
wherein a third coupling groove is formed on an upper surface of the connector to which the lower end of the cover is coupled and that is connected to the first coupling groove.
However, Kojima teaches:
a cover (50) coupled to the housing to cover a receiving part (70, figs. 1 and 2), wherein a first coupling groove (76, 78, fig. 8) is formed on an upper surface of the housing (fig. 8) to which a bottom end of the cover (56a, 56b) is coupled (¶[0058]), a third coupling groove (119, fig. 3) is formed on an upper surface of a connector (110, figs. 3) to which a lower end of the cover (57, fig. 3) is coupled and that is connected to the first coupling groove (fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Kojima’s teaching and modify the connector of Nishihata in view of Tanabe, such that a third coupling groove is formed on an upper surface of the connector to which the lower end of the cover is coupled and that is connected to the first coupling groove, in order to provide a housing seal, for the advantage of providing a water-sealed enclosure (¶[0010])
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihata in view of Tanabe, and further in view of Olsson (EP0037621A2; “Olsson” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 13, Nishihata in view of Tanabe, teaches the limitations of claim 5, and Nishihata further teaches:
wherein the support includes a projection protruding upward (see annotated fig. 3 below), and wherein the third region and the printed circuit board each include a coupling hole (see annotated fig. 3 below) to which the projection is joined (as disclosed upon examination of figs. 3 and 5).
PNG
media_image4.png
367
534
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Nishihata in view of Tanabe does not explicitly teach:
the printed circuit board includes a coupling hole to which the projection is joined.
However, Olsson teaches:
a printed circuit board (100, fig. 1) includes a coupling hole (105, fig. 1) to which a projection (14, fig. 1) is joined (page 4, lines 22-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Olsson’s teaching and modify the circuit board of Nishihata in view of Tanabe, and to include element 16, such that the printed circuit board includes a coupling hole to which the projection is joined, in order to prevent movement of the printed circuit board away from the receiving part of the housing.
Claims 16-17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihata (US 20100208447; “Nishihata”, in view of Nishito et al (JPH08203617; “Nishito” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 16, Nishihata discloses an electronic device comprising:
a housing (15 and 17, fig. 3) provided with a receiving part (17) therein and comprising a polymer resin (¶[0036]); a printed circuit board (6, fig. 3) disposed in the receiving part (fig. 5);
a shielding member (7, 9 11, figs. 3-4) disposed in the receiving part (fig. 5) and configured to at least a portion of the printed circuit board (fig. 5); and
wherein the shielding member comprises a first region (11) and a third region (9) disposed to have a height difference in a vertical direction with respect to the first region (fig. 5), and
wherein the shielding member, the printed circuit board, and the housing are connected by a connecting member (fig. 5), and
wherein a ground connection is established between the shielding member and the connector (¶[0037]).
Nishihata does not explicitly teach:
a grounding member disposed in the housing, wherein the third region, the grounding member, the printed circuit board, and the housing are connected by a connecting member.
However, Nishito teaches:
a grounding member (20, fig. 6) disposed in a housing (30, fig. 6), wherein a third region (32, fig. 6), the grounding member, a printed circuit board (5), and the housing are connected by a connecting member (10, fig. 8),
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 electronic device of Nishihata and include the grounding member of Nishito, such that a grounding member disposed in the housing, wherein the third region, the grounding member, the printed circuit board, and the housing are connected by a connecting member, in order to establish a direct ground connection between the shielding member and the connector. The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Chen. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143)
Regarding claim 17, Nishihata in view of Nishito, teaches the limitations of claim 16, and the combination further teaches:
wherein the third region of the shielding member, the grounding member, the printed circuit board, and the housing overlap in the vertical direction (the combination of Nishito into Nishihata teaches this limitation, since the ground member is disposed to contact the connector, the third region and the printed circuit board, and thus overlap in the vertical direction).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9, 14, 18-19 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.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest,
in combination with other limitations recited in claims 1, 4-5, a combination of limitations that teaches:
comprising a ground member disposed in the housing and having one end disposed inside the support so as to be screw-coupled to the printed circuit board, the third region, and the support. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Claims 7-9 are objected to by virtue of dependency to claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest,
in combination with other limitations recited in claim 1, a combination of limitations that teaches:
wherein the ground pin has ground power. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest,
in combination with other limitations recited in claim 16, a combination of limitations that teaches:
wherein the third region of the shielding member, the grounding member, the printed circuit board, and the housing each include holes that overlap in the vertical direction. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Claim 19 is objected to by virtue of dependency to claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is:
US 20210257276 A1 Power Conversion Apparatus. This invention relates generally to a first substrate on which a power conversion circuit is mounted; a second substrate on which a driving circuit that drives the power conversion circuit is mounted; and a shield plate that is disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein the first substrate is a metal substrate.
US 20220386454 A1 Electronic Control Device. This invention generally relates to a casing of an electronic control device including a casing-side contact surface in contact with the end of a printed-circuit board. A cover includes a cover-side contact surface holding the end of the printed-circuit board together with the casing-side contact surface by being in contact with the end of the printed-circuit board. In the printed-circuit board, a held portion held between the casing-side contact surface and the cover-side contact surface is provided with a through-hole via.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KRIM whose telephone number is (703)756-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am -4:30pm.
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 L 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.
/P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
