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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement.
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, 3, & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma (US Patent # 5,872,332) in view of Fujimasa et al. (WIPO Application Publication WO/2021/044831, all citations refer to English language child application US Patent Application Publication # 2022/0304169).
Regarding Claim 1, Verma discloses an electrical distribution center, comprising:
a housing (i.e. molded polymer housing 10) formed of an electrically nonconductive material (i.e. polymer such as polyethylene terephthalate);
an electromagnetic housing shield (i.e. metal shield 16/15) formed of an electrically conductive material disposed within a cavity in the housing;
a cover (i.e. the open top is to be enclosed by a cover, not shown) enclosing the cavity; and
a plurality of shielded electrical connectors (i.e. terminal pins 32 & connector shroud 34), wherein electrical components (i.e. a circuit board 24 containing the necessary components) are mounted on a plurality of standoffs (i.e. posts 26 w/ portions 29) defined by an inner surface of the housing, wherein the plurality of standoffs extends through a plurality of apertures (i.e. openings 28) defined in the housing shield, such that the electrical components are not shielded from the plurality of standoffs (i.e. posts 26 are shown in Fig. 3 to be extruded, not shielded, and protrude through a hole in the circuit board) (Fig. 1-3; Abstract; Column 1, line 58-Column 2, line 35; Claim 1).
Verma does not explicitly disclose an electromagnetic cover shield formed of the electrically conductive material and in electrical contact with the housing shield and that the plurality of shielded electrical connectors are interconnected to one another through electrical components contained within the cavity.
Fujimasa teaches an electromagnetic cover shield (i.e. cover side shield portion 151i or cover portion 15h) formed of the electrically conductive material (i.e. conductive member formed of a metal such as aluminum) and in electrical contact with the housing shield (i.e. shield layer 111) and that the plurality of shielded electrical connectors (i.e. terminals of connectors 13(1) & 13(2)) are interconnected to one another through electrical components (i.e. electronic control board 12 & electronic components 121) contained within the cavity (Fig. 1-2 & 10-12; Abstract; Paragraphs 0029-0038, 0079-0083).
Fujimasa teaches that it is well known in the art of electromagnetically-shielded housings for electronic devices to provide an electromagnetic cover shield for the cover of the housing in order to secure the electromagnetic compatibility of the device. Verma provides a cover for their disclosed housing, but is silent on shielding for it. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a cover shield with the cover of Verma, as taught by Fujimasa, in order to secure the electromagnetic compatibility of the electronic package/device. Furthermore, Verma shows a plurality of shielded electrical connectors as terminal pins 32/connector shroud 34 and electronic components as a circuit board 24 containing the necessary components, but does not explicitly show how they are interconnected even if it is clear to one skilled in the art that they must be connected in order to function. Fujimasa teaches similar features by illustrating how an electronic control board 12 & electronic components 121 are connected with terminals/connectors 13(1)/13(2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to interconnect the plurality of shielded electrical connectors to one another through electrical components contained within the cavity in Verma, as taught by Fujimasa, in order to reliably connect said connectors and components while properly shielding them against EMI.
Regarding Claim 3, Verma in view of Fujimasa discloses that connector shields (i.e. cover side shield portion 151i) of the plurality of shielded electrical connectors (i.e. terminals of connectors 13(1)) are in electrical contact with the housing shield (i.e. shield layer 111) (Fujimasa: Fig. 10-12).
Regarding Claim 4, Verma in view of Fujimasa discloses that at least one of the connector shields (i.e. cover side shield portion 151i) is disposed within a connector shroud (i.e. walls of connectors 13(1) & cover side reinforcement portion 152i) integrally formed by the housing (i.e. base portion 11) (Fig. 1-2 & 10-12; Abstract; Paragraphs 0029-0038, 0079-0083). Cover side shield portion 151i is disposed within cover side reinforcement portion 152i which forms a “shroud” around the connector along with the inner walls of said connector
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma (US Patent # 5,872,332) in view of Fujimasa et al. (WIPO Application Publication WO/2021/044831, all citations refer to English language child application US Patent Application Publication # 2022/0304169) in further view of Chiba (Japanese Patent Application Publication # JP1997-331180).
Regarding Claim 2, Verma in view of Fujimasa does not explicitly disclose that the cover shield is mounted to the cover by a plurality of fasteners and the plurality of fasteners extend through a plurality of apertures defined in the cover shield.
Chiba teaches that the cover shield (i.e. conductive film 3a) is mounted to the cover (i.e. cover 3) by a plurality of fasteners (i.e. screws 6) and the plurality of fasteners extend through a plurality of apertures defined in the cover shield (Fig. 1-4; Paragraphs 0008-0016).
Chiba teaches that it is well known in the art of shielded electronic device housings to use screws to attach or mount the cover and the cover shield together by using a plurality of fasteners or screws. Verma in view of Fujimasa is silent on how the cover is mounted. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a plurality of fasteners to mount the cover shield to the cover in Verma, as taught by Chiba, in order to reliably mount the cover while ensuring proper electrical contact of the conductive film/shield which provides proper grounding ensuring the required shielding.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma (US Patent # 5,872,332) in view of Fujimasa et al. (WIPO Application Publication WO/2021/044831, all citations refer to English language child application US Patent Application Publication # 2022/0304169) in further view of Ogawa et al. (US Patent Application Publication # 2007/0167040).
Regarding Claim 5, Verma in view of Fujimasa does not explicitly disclose that at least one of the electrical components is a fuse.
Ogawa teaches that at least one of the electrical components is a fuse (Fig.; Abstract; Paragraphs 0005-0008).
Ogawa teaches that it is well known in the art of shielded electric junction boxes installed in an automobile to include a fuse as one of the electrical components contained inside. The housings of Verma and Fujimasa are also housings used in automotive applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include a fuse as one of the electrical components in the housing of Verma, as taught by Ogawa, in order to provide protection from overcurrents for the rest of the components within the housing.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma (US Patent # 5,872,332) in view of Fujimasa et al. (WIPO Application Publication WO/2021/044831, all citations refer to English language child application US Patent Application Publication # 2022/0304169) in further view of Poulsen (US Patent Application Publication # 2009/0211802).
Regarding Claim 6, Verma in view of Fujimasa does not explicitly disclose that the housing shield and the cover shield are formed of brass alloy containing about 70% copper and about 30% tin.
Poulsen teaches that the housing shield (i.e. shielding apparatus 100/200) and the cover shield (i.e. lid 250) are formed of brass alloy containing copper and tin (i.e. copper-nickel alloys, tin-plated cold rolled steel, tin-plated copper alloys, brass, copper, copper-beryllium alloys, phosphor bronze, or alloys thereof) (Fig. 1-3, 6-7; Abstract; Paragraph 0033, 0037).
Verma in view of Fujimasa & Poulsen does not explicitly disclose that the brass alloy contains about 70% copper and about 30% tin.
Poulsen teaches that it is well known in the art of shielded housings for electronics to use brass alloys with copper and tin in order to meet EMI shielding and heat dissipation needs according to the application. Poulsen is silent on the specific content ratio percentages of the copper and tin. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a brass alloy containing copper and tin to make the housing shield and the cover shield of Verma in view of Fujimasa, as taught by Poulsen, in order to properly meet the EMI shielding needs of the device while also allowing for proper heat dissipation. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a brass alloy containing about 70% copper and about 30% tin, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Adjusting the content ratios of an alloy would also have been obvious to one skilled in the art to obtain specific shielding characteristics.
Regarding Claim 7, Verma in view of Fujimasa does not explicitly disclose that the housing shield and the cover shield have a thickness of about 0.3 millimeters.
Poulsen teaches that the housing shield (i.e. shielding apparatus 100/200) and the cover shield (i.e. lid 250) have a thickness of about 0.3 millimeters (Fig. 1-3, 6-7; Abstract; Paragraph 0033, 0037).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the housing shield and the cover shield of Verma in view of Fujimasa have a thickness of about 0.3 millimeters, as taught by Poulsen, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, Poulsen states that a frame may be configured with different dimensions depending, for example, on the particular application, such as the electrical components to be shielded, space considerations within the overall electronic device, EMI shielding and heat dissipation needs, and other factors.
Regarding Claim 8, Verma in view of Fujimasa does not explicitly disclose that the housing shield and the cover shield are formed of a sheet of steel material plated with a tin alloy or a copper alloy.
Poulsen teaches that the housing shield (i.e. shielding apparatus 100/200) and the cover shield (i.e. lid 250) are formed of a sheet of steel material plated with a tin alloy or a copper alloy (i.e. tin-plated cold rolled steel) (Fig. 1-3, 6-7; Abstract; Paragraph 0033, 0037).
Poulsen teaches that it is well known in the art of shielded housings for electronics to use a sheet of steel material plated with a tin alloy in order to meet EMI shielding and heat dissipation needs according to the application. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a sheet of steel material plated with a tin alloy to make the housing shield and the cover shield of Verma in view of Fujimasa, as taught by Poulsen, in order to properly meet the EMI shielding needs of the device while also allowing for proper heat dissipation. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 9, Verma in view of Fujimasa does not explicitly disclose that the housing shield comprises a plurality of spring tabs configured to make electrical contact with the cover shield.
Poulsen teaches that that the housing shield (i.e. shielding apparatus 100/200) comprises a plurality of spring tabs (i.e. dimples 120/220 or openings 258 which engage dimples 254 of lid 250) configured to make electrical contact with the cover shield (i.e. lid 250) (Fig. 1-7; Abstract; Paragraph 0033-0042).
Poulsen teaches that it is well known in the art of shielded housings for electronics to use dimples and openings in order to attach the lid or cover shield to the housing shield creating a fully shielded housing around the internal components. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use such an attachment configuration for the housing shield and cover shield of Verma in view of Fujimasa, as taught by Poulsen, in order to reliably attach them to and make electrical contact with each other to maintain shielding integrity.
Regarding Claim 10, Verma in view of Fujimasa does not explicitly disclose that the cover is welded to the housing.
Poulsen teaches that the cover (i.e. lid 250) is welded to the housing (i.e. shielding apparatus 100/200) (Fig. 1-3, 6-7; Abstract; Paragraph 0033, 0037, 0042).
Poulsen teaches that it is well known in the art of shielded housings for electronics to use welding to attach the cover/lid to the housing in order to obtain a reliable attachment that maintains proper shielding function. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to weld the cover to the housing in Verma in view of Fujimasa, as taught by Poulsen, in order to reliably attach the cover and maintain proper shielding function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the Verma in view of Fujimasa does not teach or suggest Claim 1 as now amended which requires “that the electrical components are not shielded from the plurality of standoffs”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and has addressed the new limitation in the rejection above. Furthermore, the Applicant merely states this and does not really explain how the newly amended claim is not taught by the references. Therefore, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RHADAMES J ALONZO MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-7829. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm PST.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at (571) 272-2342. 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.
/RJA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights