DETAILED ACTION
Reply Under 37 CFR 1.111
The Amendments and Applicant Arguments submitted on 02/04/2026 have been received and its contents have been carefully considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 3, 7, 10-11, 17 and 19, as currently amended, are presented for examination. Claims 2, 4-6, 8-9, 12-16, 18 and 20, as previously submitted, are now presented again for examination.
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) 1 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakinoki (US Publication 2009/0057002) taken alone.
In re Claim 1, Kakinoki discloses an apparatus comprising: an Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) shield configured to provide EMI shielding for electronic circuitry on a Printed Circuit Board (PCB), the EMI shield comprising: an EMI shield lid 3; and an EMI shield connector 12 to electrically couple the EMI shield lid to at least one tube 4 on the PCB 2 such that the EMI shield connector is to provide a ground to the EMI shield lid via the at least one tube and via a solder 7 between the at least one tube and the PCB, wherein the EMI shield connector 12 is configured to maintain the EMI shield lid over the electronic circuitry on the PCB.
Kakinoki also discloses wherein the EMI shield connector 12 extends along at least one side of the EMI shield lid 3 (See Figure 2), the EMI shield connector 12 configured to engage the at least one tube 4. Kakinoki does not explicitly disclose wherein the tube extends along the entirety of the side of the EMI shield lid. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of modular electronics at a time before the effective filing date to modify Kakinoki’s connectors and tube to extend along the entirety of the side of the EMI shield lid and provide continuous or substantially continuous engagement between the connectors and the tube. Such modification merely involves increasing the number of contact points/connectors and/or increasing the number of tubes along the side of the EMI shield lid. This modification would have been motivated by a recognized goal of improving electrical grounding continuity while also providing a more robust physical connection between the lid and tube to keep the lid and tube connected. This is a predictable result and therefore would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04 (V)(E).
In re Claim 17, Kakinoki discloses an electronic device comprising: a Printed Circuit Board (PCB) 2; electronic circuitry 50 on the PCB 2; at least one tube 4 soldered to the PCB; and an Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) shield configured to provide EMI shielding for the electronic circuitry on the PCB, the EMI shield comprising: an EMI shield lid 3 disposed over the electronic circuitry on the PCB; and an EMI shield connector 12 configured to electrically couple the EMI shield lid to the at least one tube 4 on the PCB 2 such that the EMI shield connector is to provide a ground to the EMI shield lid via the at least one tube and via a solder between the at least one tube and the PCB. Kakinoki, paragraph 0066.
Kakinoki also discloses wherein the EMI shield connector 12 extends along at least one side of the EMI shield lid 3 (See Figure 2), the EMI shield connector 12 configured to engage the at least one tube 4. Kakinoki does not explicitly disclose wherein the tube extends along the entirety of the side of the EMI shield lid. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of modular electronics at a time before the effective filing date to modify Kakinoki’s connectors and tube to extend along the entirety of the side of the EMI shield lid and provide continuous or substantially continuous engagement between the connectors and the tube. Such modification merely involves increasing the number of contact points/connectors and/or increasing the number of tubes along the side of the EMI shield lid. This modification would have been motivated by a recognized goal of improving electrical grounding continuity while also providing a more robust physical connection between the lid and tube to keep the lid and tube connected. This is a predictable result and therefore would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04 (V)(E).
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malek et al. (US Publication 2012/0176755) in view of Kakinoki (US Publication 2009/0057002).
In re Claim 1, Malek discloses an apparatus comprising: an Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) shield configured to provide EMI shielding for electronic circuitry on a Printed Circuit Board (PCB), the EMI shield comprising: an EMI shield lid 330; and an EMI shield connector 324 to electrically couple the EMI shield lid to at least one tube 310, 316 on the PCB such that the EMI shield connector 324 is to provide a ground to the EMI shield lid 330 via the at least one tube 310, 316 (tube 316 is connected to the grounding sheath of 310 and the grounding sheath may be grounded at other points in the system…thus at this particular point of contact between 324 and 316 provides an additional grounding point for the shield lid 330), wherein the EMI shield connector 324 is configured to maintain the EMI shield lid 330 over the electronic circuitry on the PCB.
Malek further discloses wherein the EMI shield connector 324 extends along at least one side of the EMI shield lid 330 (See Figure 3), the EMI shield connector 324 configured to engage the at least one tube 310, 316 extending along an entirety of the at least one side of the EMI shield lid 330. See Malek, Figure 3 (the tube 310, 316 extending along at least one entire side of the EMI shield lid 330).
Malek does not explicitly disclose a solder between the tube and the PCB. However, providing such was not new in the art. For example, Kakinoki discloses a tube 4 that is electrically grounded to a PCB via solder and wherein a shield 3 is grounded via connection to the tube 4. Kakinoki, paragraph 0066. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of modular electronics to have provided a tube that is soldered to the printed circuit board, as disclosed in Kakinoki, with the apparatus as otherwise disclosed in Malek to provide for a means for grounding the tube and thus maintaining a ground of the EMI shield.
In re Claim 2, Malek discloses wherein the EMI shield connector 324 is configured to form with the at least one tube 310, 316 an EMI shield fence between the EMI shield lid 330 and the PCB 302.
In re Claim 3, Malek discloses wherein the EMI shield connector 324 is configured to form the EMI shield fence along at least one side of the EMI shield lid. See Malek, Figure 3.
In re Claim 4, Malek as modified by Kakinoki discloses wherein the EMI shield connector (324 in Malek) is configured to provide the ground to the EMI shield lid (330 in Malek) via a path from the EMI shield lid to the EMI shield connector, from the EMI shield connector to the at least one tube (316 in Malek; 4 in Kakinoki), and from the at least one tube to the solder between the at least one tube and the PCB (as disclosed in Kakinoki, the tube 4 soldered to the ground of the PCB).
In re Claim 5, Malek discloses wherein the EMI shield connector 324 comprises at least one snap configured to snap over the at least one tube. See Malek, Figure 5a.
In re Claim 6, Malek discloses wherein the snap comprises a tube-engagement surface capable of engaging with an outer surface of the at least one tube 310, 316, wherein the tube-engagement surface comprises a shape based on a shape of the outer surface of the at least one tube. See Malek, Figure 5a.
In re Claim 7, Malek discloses wherein the at least one snap comprises a plurality of snaps along at least one side of the EMI shield lid 330. See Malek, Figures 3-5a.
In re Claim 8, Malek discloses all of the limitations as noted above, but does not explicitly disclose distances between the snaps. However, as noted above, Malek does disclose a plurality of snaps and therefore to merely specify a distance between snaps would have been an obvious modification to a person having ordinary skill in the art of modular electronics as it would only have amounted to a rearranging of parts. See MPEP §2144.04 (VI).
In re Claim 9, Malek discloses wherein the EMI shield connector 324 comprises a shape based on a shape of an outer surface of the at least one tube 310, 316. See Malek, Figure 5a.
In re Claim 10, Malek discloses wherein the tube 310, 316 is configured to transfer signals between electronic components on the PCB 302. Malek, paragraphs 0044-0045.
In re Claims 11-12, Malek discloses the limitations as noted above, and further discloses
wherein the EMI shield comprises a first EMI shield connector 324 on a first side of the EMI shield lid 330 to electrically couple the EMI shield lid to a first tube 310, 316 on the PCB 302. See Malek, Figures 3-5a. However, Malek does not explicitly disclose wherein the shield and tube go on both sides of the shield. However, providing a shield connector and tube on both sides of what is otherwise disclosed in Malek as being on one side is an obvious modification to Malek as it only involves a change in shape, location and/or design of Malek that has been held to be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. See MPEP §2144.04 (I), (IV)(B), (VI).
In re Claim 13, Malek discloses wherein the EMI shield connector 324 comprises a detachable connector configured to detachably couple the EMI shield lid 330 to the at least one tube 310, 316.
In re Claims 14-15, Malek discloses the limitations as noted above, and further discloses wherein the shield is used to protect from EMI in a variety of ranges. Malek, paragraph 0031. However, Malek does not explicitly disclose wherein frequencies are between 2.4 Gigahertz and 7.2 Gigahertz. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date to design the shield for protecting within frequencies as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Malek, paragraph 0031), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re Claim 16, Malek discloses a printed circuit board 302.
In re Claim 17, Malek discloses an electronic device comprising: a Printed Circuit Board (PCB) 302; electronic circuitry 304 on the PCB; at least one tube 310, 316 connected to the PCB; and an Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) shield configured to provide EMI shielding for the electronic circuitry on the PCB, the EMI shield comprising: an EMI shield lid 330 disposed over the electronic circuitry on the PCB; and an EMI shield connector 324 configured to electrically couple the EMI shield lid to the at least one tube 310, 316 on the PCB such that the EMI shield connector 324 is to provide a ground to the EMI shield lid 330 via the at least one tube 310, 316 (since the tube 310, 316 is grounded to various other connection points).
Malek further discloses wherein the EMI shield connector 324 extends along at least one side of the EMI shield lid 330 (See Figure 3), the EMI shield connector 324 configured to engage the at least one tube 310, 316 extending along an entirety of the at least one side of the EMI shield lid 330. See Malek, Figure 3 (the tube 310, 316 extending along at least one entire side of the EMI shield lid 330).
Malek does not explicitly disclose a solder between the tube and the PCB. However, providing such was not new in the art. For example, Kakinoki discloses a tube 4 that is electrically grounded to a PCB via solder and wherein a shield 3 is grounded via connection to the tube 4. Kakinoki, paragraph 0066. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of modular electronics to have provided a tube that is soldered to the printed circuit board, as disclosed in Kakinoki, with the apparatus as otherwise disclosed in Malek to provide for a means for grounding the tube and thus maintaining a ground of the EMI shield.
In re Claim 18, Malek discloses wherein the EMI shield connector 324 is configured to form with the at least one tube 310, 316 an EMI shield fence between the EMI shield lid 330 and the PCB 302.
In re Claim 19, Malek discloses a computing device comprising: a display (paragraph 0019); a processor (paragraph 0017); a memory (paragraph 0017); a Printed Circuit Board (PCB) 302; electronic circuitry 304 on the PCB; at least one tube 310, 316 connected to the PCB; and an Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) shield configured to provide EMI shielding for the electronic circuitry on the PCB, the EMI shield comprising: an EMI shield lid 330 disposed over the electronic circuitry on the PCB; and an EMI shield connector 324 configured to electrically couple the EMI shield lid to the at least one tube on the PCB such that the EMI shield connector is to provide a ground to the shield lid via the at least one tube (since the tube 310, 316 is grounded to various other connection points).
Malek further discloses wherein the EMI shield connector 324 extends along at least one side of the EMI shield lid 330 (See Figure 3), the EMI shield connector 324 configured to engage the at least one tube 310, 316 extending along an entirety of the at least one side of the EMI shield lid 330. See Malek, Figure 3 (the tube 310, 316 extending along at least one entire side of the EMI shield lid 330).
Malek does not explicitly disclose a solder between the tube and the PCB. However, providing such was not new in the art. For example, Kakinoki discloses a tube 4 that is electrically grounded to a PCB via solder and wherein a shield 3 is grounded via connection to the tube 4. Kakinoki, paragraph 0066. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of modular electronics to have provided a tube that is soldered to the printed circuit board, as disclosed in Kakinoki, with the apparatus as otherwise disclosed in Malek to provide for a means for grounding the tube and thus maintaining a ground of the EMI shield.
In re Claim 20, Malek discloses wherein the EMI shield connector 324 comprises a detachable connector configured to detachably couple the EMI shield lid 330 to the at least one tube 310, 316.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that Malek fails to disclose “wherein the EMI shield connector extends along at least one side of the EMI shield lid, the EMI shield connector configured to engage the at least one tube extending along an entirety of the at least one side of the EMI shield lid” as claimed in Claim 1 and similarly in Claims 17 and 19. Applicant’s Arguments, pp. 9-11. I respectfully disagree. The claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. MPEP §2111. As such, the amended claim language only requires that “the tube extending along an entirety of the at least one side of the EMI shield lid.” In other words, under a broadest reasonable interpretation the claim language does not require that the EMI shield connector extend along the entirety of the at least one side of the EMI shield lid but only that “the EMI shield connector extends along at least one side of the EMI shield lid” and be “configured to engage the at least one tube.” Malek discloses wherein the EMI shield connector 324 extends along a side of the EMI shield lid 330 (See Figure 3) and wherein the tube extends along an entirety of the at least one side of the EMI shield lid 330 (Figure 3). Therefore, Malek does disclose the newly added limitations of Claims 1, 17 and 19.
Applicant’s arguments in regard to Kakinoki not disclosing the newly added limitations of Claims 1 and 17 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection above.
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 Adrian S Wilson whose telephone number is (571)270-3907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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.
/ADRIAN S WILSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights