Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/848,384

ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE SHIELDING FILTER

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jun 23, 2022
Examiner
LIAN, MANG TIN BIK
Art Unit
2837
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
921 granted / 1312 resolved
+2.2% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
82 currently pending
Career history
1394
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
53.4%
+13.4% vs TC avg
§102
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
§112
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1312 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/08/2025 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a plurality of ferrite elements arranged in an elliptical configuration” as amended claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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. Claim Objections Claims 1-3, 5, 6 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 1, it appears “the elliptical magnetic core” should be --the elliptical ferrite core--. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 9 are objected to as being dependent on claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 9, the originally filed specification does not disclose “the elliptical ferrite magnetic core comprises a plurality of ferrite elements arranged in an elliptical configuration” as amended. 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 1, 2, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2009/0289755 A1) in view of Finnemore et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,246,311 B1). With respect to claim 1, Yu et al., hereinafter referred to as “Yu,” teaches an electromagnetic wave shielding filter 300 (Fig. 3) for high-frequency communication, comprising: an outer enclosure 360; an elliptical magnetic core 305 disposed along a central axis (imaginary axis around the center) of the outer enclosure, the elliptical magnetic core having high-frequency characteristics suitable for transmitting high-frequency signals; a primary coil 310 and a secondary coil 320 wound around the elliptical magnetic core at opposing positions (left and right positions) such that the primary coil and the secondary coil are disposed symmetrically with respect to the elliptical magnetic core; a core shielding and penetration unit 366 formed of a high-conductivity material, wherein the core shielding and penetration unit surrounds a portion of the elliptical magnetic core extending between the primary coil and the secondary coil, and is in close contact with an inner surface (interior surface) of the outer enclosure to thereby form an electromagnetic shield between the primary coil and the secondary coil (paras. [0021] and [0024]). PNG media_image1.png 612 530 media_image1.png Greyscale Yu does not expressly teach a ferrite magnetic core. Finnemore et al., hereinafter referred to as “Finnemore,” teaches inductive device (Fig. 1), comprising: a ferrite magnetic core 12 (col. 3, lines 1-4). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the ferrite magnetic core as taught by Finnemore to the electromagnetic wave shielding filter of Yu to reduce eddy current loss. With respect to claim 2, Yu in view of Finnemore teaches the electromagnetic wave shielding filter according to claim 1, wherein the elliptical ferrite magnetic core has a high magnetic permeability to facilitate signal transmission in the form of a magnetic field from the primary coil to the secondary coil through the elliptical magnetic core, and wherein the core shielding and penetration unit electromagnetically shields a space around the elliptical magnetic core to maintain electromagnetic shielding between the primary coil and the secondary coil (Yu, paras. [0021] and [0024], Finnemore, col. 3, lines 1-4). With respect to claim 5, Yu in view of Finnemore teaches the electromagnetic wave shielding filter according to claim 2, wherein the core shielding and penetration unit is formed of a high-conductivity material including one of iron, copper or aluminum (Finnemore, para. [0024]). With respect to claim 6, Yu in view of Finnemore teaches the electromagnetic wave shielding filter according to claim 2, wherein the primary coil and the secondary coil are each wound around the elliptical ferrite magnetic core one or more turns to enable transmission of a radio frequency (RF) signal from a primary end to a secondary end (Yu, para. [0021]). Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Finnemore, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Watanabe (U.S. Patent No. 6,391,222 B1). With respect to claim 3, Yu in view of Finnemore teaches the electromagnetic wave shielding filter according to claim 2. Yu in view of Finnemore does not expressly teach the ferrite magnetic core is formed of an NiMn-type ferrite material having low electrical conductivity and high magnetic permeability for high-frequency signal transmission. Watanabe teaches a filter (FIG. 3c), wherein the elliptical ferrite magnetic core 11 is formed of an NiMn-type ferrite material having low electrical conductivity and high magnetic permeability for high-frequency signal transmission (col. 9, lines 33-45). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the NiMn-type ferrite magnetic core as taught by Watanabe to the electromagnetic wave shielding filter of Yu in view of Finnemore to provide the desired saturation magnetic flux density so that the DC pre-magnetization is excellent (col. 9, lines 55-59). Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Finnemore, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Pagenkopf (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2020/0403595 A1). With respect to claim 9, Yu in view of Finnemore teaches the electromagnetic wave shielding filter according to claim 2. Yu in view of Finnemore does not expressly teach the elliptical ferrite magnetic core comprises a plurality of ferrite elements arranged in an elliptical configuration. Pagenkopf teaches a filter (e.g. FIG. 3), wherein the elliptical ferrite magnetic core 14 comprises a plurality of ferrite elements 34 arranged in an elliptical configuration (para. [0023]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the ferrite elements as taught by Pagenkopf to the electromagnetic wave shielding filter of Yu in view of Finnemore to adjust inductance as needed (para. [0006]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGTIN LIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0800-1700. 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, Shawki S. Ismail can be reached at 571-272-3985. 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. /MANG TIN BIK LIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 23, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Aug 15, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 09, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Dec 08, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603211
COIL COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597557
Dry High Voltage Instrument Transformer
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597554
ELECTRONIC COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597556
TRANSFORMER DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586715
Coil Component
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+26.4%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1312 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month