Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/293,668

ELECTROMAGNETIC SHIELD AND COMMUNICATIONS UNIT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jan 30, 2024
Examiner
AUGUSTIN, CHRISTOPHER L
Art Unit
2841
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
419 granted / 542 resolved
+9.3% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
557
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
44.2%
+4.2% vs TC avg
§102
38.1%
-1.9% vs TC avg
§112
14.3%
-25.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 542 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 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. Claim(s) 1-3, 12-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lungu US 20150225113. Regarding claim 1, Lungu US 20150225113 discloses (in Fig. 1) an electromagnetic shield comprising: a metal sheet (1) having a first surface and a second surface opposite from the first surface; a first viscoelastic layer (2) provided for the first surface; and a second viscoelastic layer (2) provided for the second surface (as depicted in Fig. 1). Regarding claim 2, Lungu discloses the electromagnetic shield of claim 1, wherein the metal sheet (1) has a plurality of gaps (as depicted in Fig. 1). Regarding claim 3, Lungu discloses the electromagnetic shield of claim 2, wherein the metal sheet (1) has a mesh shape (as depicted in Fig. 1). Regarding claim 12, Lungu discloses the electromagnetic shield of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first viscoelastic layer (2) or the second viscoelastic layer (2) contains a urethane resin as a material thereof (polyurethane, see [0020]). Regarding claim 13, Lungu discloses the electromagnetic shield of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first viscoelastic layer (2) or the second viscoelastic layer (2) has a hardness equal to or greater than 0 degrees and equal to or less than 5 degrees. Regarding claim 15, Lungu discloses the electromagnetic shield of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first viscoelastic layer (2) or the second viscoelastic layer (2) is gelatinous (silicone rubber see [0020]). Claim(s) 1, 4 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee US 20150086743. Regarding claim 1, Lee US 20150086743 discloses (in Fig. 5) an electromagnetic shield comprising: a metal sheet (80) having a first surface and a second surface (second side see [0033]) opposite from the first surface; a first viscoelastic layer (20 see [0050]) provided for the first surface; and a second viscoelastic layer (30 see [0050]) provided for the second surface (as depicted in Fig. 5). Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses the electromagnetic shield of claim 1, wherein the second viscoelastic layer (30) has lower rigidity than the first viscoelastic layer (20; see [0058] indicates the sheets having different adhesive strength values, said sheets would normally have mutually different rigidity). Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the electromagnetic shield of claim 1, wherein the second viscoelastic layer (30) has lower adhesive force than the first viscoelastic layer (20; see [0058]). Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses the electromagnetic shield of claim 1, wherein the second viscoelastic layer (30) has lower viscosity than the first viscoelastic layer (20; see [0058] indicates the sheets having different adhesive strength values, said sheets would normally have mutually different viscosity). 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. Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakurai US 20040224129. Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses the electromagnetic shield of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first viscoelastic layer or the second viscoelastic layer has an adhesive surface (surface at 40/42 in Fig. 5). Lee does not explicitly disclose at least one of the first viscoelastic layer or the second viscoelastic layer has the adhesive surface including a tilted surface tilted with respect to a plane parallel to the metal sheet, the adhesive surface being opposite from another surface, facing the metal sheet, of the at least one of the first viscoelastic layer or the second viscoelastic layer. However, Sakurai US 20040224129 discloses an adhesive layer (2 in Fig. 4) having an adhesive surface (surface having 3 in Fig. 4) including a tilted surface (one of the tilted surfaces of 3 in Fig. 3) tilted with respect to a plane parallel to a (substrate 1), the adhesive surface (surface having 3) being opposite from another surface (surface at 1 in Fig. 4), facing the (substrate 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the adhesive surface of at least one of the first viscoelastic layer or the second viscoelastic layer including a tilted surface tilted with respect to a plane parallel to the metal sheet, the adhesive surface being opposite from another surface, facing the metal sheet, of the at least one of the first viscoelastic layer or the second viscoelastic layer, as taught by Sakurai, in order to allow air to readily escape during application see [0027]. Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the electromagnetic shield of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first viscoelastic layer or the second viscoelastic layer has an adhesive surface (surface at 40/42 in Fig. 5). Lee does not explicitly disclose at least one of the first viscoelastic layer or the second viscoelastic layer has an adhesive surface having a depression, the adhesive surface being opposite from another surface, facing the metal sheet, of the at least one of the first viscoelastic layer or the second viscoelastic layer. However, Sakurai US 20040224129 discloses an adhesive layer (2 in Fig. 4) having an adhesive surface (surface having 3 in Fig. 4) having a depression (3 in Fig. 4), the adhesive surface being opposite from another surface, facing the metal sheet, of the at least one of the first viscoelastic layer or the second viscoelastic layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the adhesive surface of at least one of the first viscoelastic layer or the second viscoelastic layer have a depression, the adhesive surface being opposite from another surface, facing the metal sheet, of the at least one of the first viscoelastic layer or the second viscoelastic layer, as taught by Sakurai, in order to allow air to readily escape during application see [0027]. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yokota JP 2020184621 A. Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses the electromagnetic shield of claim 1. Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the second viscoelastic layer includes magnetic particles. However, Yokota JP 2020184621 discloses a viscoelastic layer (32 in Fig. 1) including magnetic particles (see [0006] of pg. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second viscoelastic layer include magnetic particles, as taught by Yokota, in order to enhance the effect of electromagnetic shielding see [0006] of pg. 2. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arakawa US 20060088690. Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses the electromagnetic shield of claim 1. Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the first viscoelastic layer has a different color from the second viscoelastic layer. However, Arakawa US 20060088690 discloses an adhesive layer having a different color [0007]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first viscoelastic layer has a different color from the second viscoelastic layer, as taught by Arakawa, in order to allow for infrared absorption see [0007]. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tajiri US 5667877. Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses the electromagnetic shield of claim 1. Lee does not explicitly disclose at least one of the first viscoelastic layer or the second viscoelastic layer has a property that allows the at least one of the first viscoelastic layer or the second viscoelastic layer to recover adhesive force by having an adhesive surface washed with water and then dried, the adhesive surface being opposite from another surface, facing the metal sheet, of the at least one of the first viscoelastic layer or the second viscoelastic layer. However, Tajiri US 5667877 discloses at an adhesive layer (2/3 in Fig. 1) having a property that allows the at least one of the adhesive layer to recover adhesive force by having an adhesive surface washed with water and then dried (see Col. 3 ln. 52-61), the adhesive surface being opposite from another surface, facing the metal sheet, of the at least one of the first viscoelastic layer or the second viscoelastic layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one of the first viscoelastic layer or the second viscoelastic layer have a property that allows the at least one of the first viscoelastic layer or the second viscoelastic layer to recover adhesive force by having an adhesive surface washed with water and then dried, the adhesive surface being opposite from another surface, facing the metal sheet, of the at least one of the first viscoelastic layer or the second viscoelastic layer, as taught by Tajiri, in order to allow reapplication and adhesive strength recovery (see Col.3 ln. 52/61). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5 and 16-19 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 5 the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claim 1, a combination of limitations that “wherein at least one of the first viscoelastic layer or the second viscoelastic layer has an adhesive surface having a shape different from a plane parallel to the metal sheet and conforming to a shape of a target member, to which the at least one of the first viscoelastic layer or the second viscoelastic layer is adhered, the adhesive surface being opposite from another surface, facing the metal sheet, of the at least one of the first viscoelastic layer or the second viscoelastic layer”. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination. Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claim 1, a combination of limitations that “wherein at least one of the first viscoelastic layer or the second viscoelastic layer has an adhesive surface having a groove with a plurality of stripe portions, the adhesive surface being opposite from another surface, facing the metal sheet, of the at least one of the first viscoelastic layer or the second viscoelastic layer, the plurality of stripe portions being arranged side by side in a direction different from a direction in which the plurality of stripe portions extend”. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination. Regarding claim 17, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claim 1, a combination of limitations that “A communications unit comprising: the electromagnetic shield of claim 1; and a communications device, the communications device including: a housing to be adhered onto the first viscoelastic layer; a terminal block held by the housing and configured to allow a cable to be connected to the terminal block; and a communications module held by the housing and configured to wirelessly output data that the communications module has received via the cable”. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination. Claims 18-19 depending from claim 17 would therefore also be allowable. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER L AUGUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 3 pm. 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. /ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /CHRISTOPHER L AUGUSTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 30, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 01, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604428
INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM BEZEL LATCH AND LOCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596997
INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM AND PERIPHERAL PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD HAVING NON-HOMOGENEOUS SUBSTRATE MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593428
VARIABLE DISTANCE SENSOR SECURITY DEVICES AND SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593419
CONNECTOR FOR ACCOMMODATING THE ACCUMULATED TOLERANCE, SERVER, AND COMPUTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593421
CARRIER, CABINET, AND SERVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+28.4%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 542 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