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 .
Reply Under 37 CFR 1.111
The submission of the reply filed on 01/07/2026 to the non-final Office action of 10/06/2025 is acknowledged. The Office action on currently pending elected claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 14, 16-18, and 20 follows.
Drawings
The drawings (Fig. 2) are again objected to because the use of solid gray shading reduces legibility and does not adequately contrast with the rest of the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.84(m). Additionally, the drawings will not reproduce well due to the shading and the character of the lines. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. See 37 CFR 1.84(1).
(1) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process
which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter
must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and
uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to
permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and
to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses
may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
(m) Shading. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the
invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of
spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded.
Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections.
See paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be
thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.
Furthermore, said Fig. 2 appears to be photographs. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1).
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 16-18, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6, 720, 494 to Norte et al. (hereafter “Norte”) in view of US 5, 887, 320 to Provost, US 2017/0217157 to Armela et al. (hereafter “Armela”), and US 5,436,802 to Trahan et al. (hereafter “Trahan”).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 10, 11, and 16-18, Norte discloses (Figs. 1-3): an electronic device (Fig. 1) comprising: a support structure (100); a radiation source (104) that emits electromagnetic interference (EMI) and/or radio-frequency interference (RFI) (col. 2, ll. 32-34) on the support structure; a radiation shield (102) over the radiation source, wherein the radiation shield (102) includes a radiation shield wall portion (i.e., the inherently present portion of (102) to which hooks (114) are attached on Fig. 1); and a hook and loop radiation shield securing mechanism (110) to removably secure the radiation shield to the support structure, wherein the hook and loop radiation shield securing mechanism includes a hook portion ((112) or (114)) with a plurality of hooks secured to the radiation shield wall portion of the radiation shield (102) and a loop portion ((112) or (114)) that includes a plurality of loops secured to the support structure (100) (e.g., see col. 2, ll. 41-59, 42-44), wherein the loop portion (112) is secured to the support structure and grounded to a ground plane of the support structure (inherently, since the outer layer (302) is an electrically conductive foil (col. 2, ll. 45-46) which is in electrical contact with the support structure (100)).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 17, Norte does not disclose that and an angle of a retention hook for each of the plurality of hooks relative to a body of each of the plurality of hooks is less than about eighty (forty) degrees and that the support structure is a printed circuit board.
Provost discloses a hook and loop radiation securing mechanism (Fig. 1), wherein an angle (α) of a retention hook (10) for each of the plurality of hooks is less than about eighty (forty) degrees relative to a body (14) of each of the plurality of hooks (col. 1, ll. 54-58), in order to provide advantageous deflection motions of the hook’s stem (16) under certain load conditions (col. 4, ll. 10-13) in order to enhance engagement of the retention hooks with the fine fibers of the loops (abstract; col. 11, ll. 20-21). Also, Provost teaches the crook angle (φ) is an included angle of 60°-120°. Provost discloses that the “crook preferably defines an included angle of between about 60° and 120° (col. 3, ll. 1-2).
Furthermore, Armela also teaches conventionality of a retention hook for each of the plurality of hooks relative to a body of each of the plurality of hooks is less than about eighty (forty) degrees (see annotated Fig. 3e below). One of the ordinary skill would be able to deduce implicit teaching from the Fig. 3e that such an acute angle would insure reliable coupling of the hook(s) with corresponding loop(s).
PNG
media_image1.png
305
369
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to Norte in view of the combined teachings of Provost and Armela, by implementing an angle of a retention hook for each of the plurality of hooks to be less than about eighty (forty) degrees, as claimed, in order to predictably enhance engagement of the retention hooks with the loops (Provost, see: abstract; col. 11, ll. 20-21 and Fig. 3e of Armela). Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Alternatively, the selection of the optimal range of the retention hook angle, including as claimed, would have been an obvious thing to do to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to achieve desired engagement of the retention hooks with the loops, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Furthermore, Norte as modified by Provost and Armela above still does not disclose that the support structure is a printed circuit board.
Trahan discloses a concept of providing a radiation (EMI) shield (100) for a radiation source (101) positioned on a support structure (120) which is a printed circuit board (PCB) (col. 3, ll. 29-33).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the Norte-Provost-Armela combination in conjunction with the support structure that is a PCB, as taught by Trahan, in order to predictably provide effective EMI shielding for a circuit-board mounted radiation source, while assuring simplified attachment and removal of a radiation shield to and from the PCB via a hook and loop radiation shield securing mechanism. Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 20, Norte discloses that the hook and loop radiation shield securing mechanism (110) is comprised of an electrically conductive material (302) (col. 2, ll. 45-46).
Examiner’s Note: regarding method claims 10, 11, and 16, since there are no specific method steps being claimed, just a general process of assembling of the device (i.e., providing each element, attaching, coupling, connecting, etc.), wherein the claims essentially repeat the structure of the device, the fact that the structure of the device of the present invention is obvious over Norte in view of Provost, Armela, and Trahan, means that the general method for providing such a structure is also obvious over the same references. The method steps recited in the claims are inherently/ obviously necessitated by the structure of the Norte-Provost-Armela-Trahan combination.
Claims 5 and 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norte in view of Provost, Armela, and Trahan, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US 2014/0146477 to Youn.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Norte in view of Provost, Armela, and Trahan does not disclose: wherein the radiation shield is a thermally conductive elastic material coated with a radiation shielding film.
Youn discloses (Fig. 1) a radiation shield (10) that is a thermally conductive elastic material (110) (see the “thermal absorption material (layer)”, “heat sink” in par [0029]; see “flexible heat-spreading material” in par. [0030]) coated with a radiation shielding film (100) for the benefits of providing a hybrid sheet material that may be constructed and arranged to absorb both thermal and EMI forms of energy. Furter, the hybrid sheet material may be flexible, thin, and capable of conforming to a mating surface. The hybrid sheet material may offer several advantages, including reducing the number of steps involved in a manufacturing process.
Further, providing a single hybrid sheet material instead of two separate sheet materials may reduce the overall thickness. This may provide the additional advantage of reducing the size and weight of a device that uses the hybrid sheet material (par. [0015])
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified to the Norte-Provost-Armela-Trahan combination according to the teachings of Youn by providing the radiation shield that is a thermally conductive elastic material coated with a radiation shielding film for the benefits of effective absorption of both thermal and EMI forms of energy, while effectively confirming to a mating surface. The hybrid sheet material would also offer several advantages, including reducing the number of steps involved in a manufacturing process. Further, providing a single hybrid sheet material instead of two separate sheet materials may reduce the overall thickness. This may provide the additional advantage of reducing the size and weight of a device that uses the hybrid sheet material (Youn, par. [0015]). Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Examiner’s Note: regarding method claim 14, since there are no specific method steps being claimed, just a general process of assembling of the device (i.e., providing each element, attaching, coupling, connecting, etc.), wherein the claim essentially repeats the structure of the device, the fact that the structure of the device of the present invention is obvious over Norte in view of Provost, Armela, Trahan, and Youn, means that the general method for providing such a structure is also obvious over the same references. The method steps recited in the claims are inherently/ obviously necessitated by the structure of the Norte-Provost-Armela-Trahan-Youn combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the drawings objection, Applicant states that, allegedly, “Applicant submits a replacement sheet for Figure 2 with improved shading”. The Office disagrees with the aforementioned statement. The drawing is still poorly readable and will not reproduce well due to the shading. To say more, it appears to be a photograph. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1).
Furthermore, regarding the art rejection, the arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. However, the Office will address the following points.
Applicant contends that, allegedly, “Provost discloses two different angles, neither of which teaches this limitation. First, Provost's stem angle (α) of 30-45° is measured between the stem and the support surface, not between a retention hook and the body of the hook. Provost describes that "[s]tem 16 is inclined with respect to support 14 such that its midline axis A forms an acute angle α with the support." Provost, column 4, lines 32-34. Even if one were to consider this angle, it does not teach an angle measured "relative to a body of" each hook as required by the independent claims from which claims 2, 11, and 18 depend. Second, Provost's crook angle (φ) is an included angle of 60°-120°. Provost discloses that "[t]he crook preferably defines an included angle of between about 60° and 120°. Provost, column 3, lines 19-20. This crook angle does not teach "less than about forty degrees" as recited by claims 2, 11, and 18”.
In response the Office directs the Applicant’s attention to the fact that in the modified rejection above, in addition to the new grounds of rejection, the portion (14) in Provost has been interpreted as the body of the hook.
Furthermore, Applicant contends that, allegedly, “Trahan does not cure the deficiencies of Norte. While Trahan teaches a PCB-level EMI shield, Trahan uses tabs and protrusions for attachment, not a hook and loop securing mechanism. See Trahan, Abstract. Trahan does not teach or suggest using a hook and loop attachment with a loop portion grounded to a ground plane and a hook portion secured to a radiation shield wall portion.”
It appears that Applicant misinterpreted the obviousness rejection. The Trahan reference was cited only for the teaching of the PCB-level EMI shield, not for the teaching of the way said EMI shield is attached to the PCB. The hook and loop attachment is taught by the primary reference Norte.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash N. Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2835