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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the amendments made to the claims 1, 7 and 10. Currently claims 1-10 are pending in the present application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Alford (US Patent No 20200241094) in view of Bae (Korean Patent No KR200342235).
Regarding claim 1, Alford teaches a plug for an electromagnetic field channel (see shield assembly 436 used as an electromagnetic shield plug, [0053]), the plug comprising: a tubular body having two opposite ends (the shield 436 can be comprised of any suitable shape for example cylindrical, [0062]); and two electromagnetic shield stacks, and spaced apart by an airgap (see wherein the shield layers 738 and 740 may be separated by an airgap in between, [0061]), wherein each electromagnetic shield stack is coextensive with an inner cross-sectional area of the tubular body (see for example fig 7C in which the top and bottom layers are coextensive within the defined walls of the body).
Alford does not teach wherein the electromagnetic shield stacks are located at opposite respective ends, individually comprised of two or more uniform thickness layers, and arranged such that the airgap is coextensive within an inner cross-sectional area.
However, the analogous electromagnetic shielding container which is taught by Bae does disclose electromagnetic shield stacks are located at opposite respective ends (see from Bae fig 2 which discloses two distinct electromagnetic shields on either side of the shielded device F, thereby being opposite respective ends), individually comprised of two or more uniform thickness layers (see in which the shield stacks of Bae contain multiple uniform layers such as the metal coating K and ferrite layer L, [0007]), and arranged such that the airgap is coextensive within an inner cross-sectional area (see from fig 2, in which Bae shows that the two distinct shields on either side of the device F are separated by an air gap in between and in which the air gap is coextensive within the cross-sectional area of the shielded layers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the electromagnetic shield plug of Alford to contain the multiple layers of shielded material separated by a coextensive air gap as taught by Bae, in order to allow for greater electromagnetic shielding capabilities and greater control of the attenuating fields as taught by Bae, [0015].
Regarding claim 2, Alford teaches the plug of claim 1, wherein each electromagnetic shield stack comprises: an outer electric field attenuator layer (see in fig 7C in which the shield layer 740 is on the outer end, and by definition the shielding layer is an attenuator); and an inner magnetic field attenuator layer (see in fig 7C in which the ASMS shield layer 738 is on the inner end, and by definition the shielding layer is an attenuator).
Regarding claim 3, Alford teaches the plug of claim 2, wherein each electromagnetic shield stack further comprises an outermost electromagnetically inert layer (Alford teaches that the outermost shielding layer 740 may comprise a shielding factor of up to 100, [0058], and thereby if the shielding factor is 100 it then becomes an electromagnetically inert layer).
Regarding claim 5, Alford teaches the plug of claim 2, wherein the inner magnetic field attenuator layer comprises a MU-metal (wherein the shielding layers may be any conventional shield material such as Mu-metal, [0059]).
Regarding claim 6, Alford teaches the plug of claim 2, wherein the airgap is approximately one inch in length (wherein the air gap range may fall between 2 to 5 cm in width, [0061], in which it is understood that 2 to 5 cm is approximately one inch).
Regarding claim 7, Alford teaches the plug of claim 2, further comprising a cap of electromagnetically inert attached to one end of the two opposing ends of the tubular body, wherein the cap has a perimeter greater than a perimeter of the tubular body (see Alford, fig 7B in which it is shown that the inert layer 740 of the shield body is of a larger perimeter than that of the smaller perimeter tub body 738, effectively creating a cap).
Regarding claim 8, Alford teaches the plug of claim 2, wherein the tubular body comprises a MU-metal (wherein the tubular body is also formed of the shielding layers which are comprised of a Mu-metal, [0059], see also fig 7A-7D).
Claim(s) 4, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alford (US Patent No 20200241094) in view of Bae (Korean Patent No KR200342235) further in view of Faraji (US Patent No 20200328025) .
Regarding claim 4, Alford teaches the plug of claim 2.
Alford does not teach wherein the outer electric field attenuator layer comprises a copper mesh.
However, this would have been an obvious material choice to use in the art as seen in the analogous noise compression system of Faraji which uses electromagnetic flux suppression similar to the present claimed plug in order to compress and suppress noise, in which it is taught that the ferrite or Mu-metals can be used in conjunction with a copper mesh layer to achieve proper electromagnetic shielding, [0089].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the electromagnetic shielding plug structure of Jimenez with that of the taught shielding layers in specific the copper mesh layer disclosed by Faraji as it is just another material design choice to achieve proper electromagnetic shielding as disclosed by Faraji, [0089].
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the plug of claim 3, wherein for each electromagnetic shield stack, each layer is adhered to an adjacent layer (from Faraji, wherein the shielding articles or layers may be taped or adhered together, [0114]).
Regarding claim 10, Alford teaches a plug for an electromagnetic field channel (Alford, see shield assembly 436 used as an electromagnetic shield plug, [0053]), the plug comprising: a tubular body of MU-metal (Alford, the shield 436 can be comprised of any suitable shape for example cylindrical, [0062], and wherein the shielding layers may be any conventional shield material such as Mu-metal, [0059]) the tubular body having two opposing ends; and two electromagnetic shield stacks spaced apart by an airgap (Alford, see wherein the shield layers 738 and 740 may be separated by an airgap in between, [0061]) having a longitudinal length of approximately one inch in length (Alford, wherein the air gap range may fall between 2 to 5 cm in width, [0061], in which it is understood that 2 to 5 cm is approximately one inch), wherein each electromagnetic shield stack that is coextensive with an inner cross-sectional area of the tubular body (Alford, see for example fig 7C in which the top and bottom layers are coextensive within the defined walls of the body), each electromagnetic shield stack comprises: an outermost electromagnetically inert layer (Alford teaches that the outermost shielding layer 740 may comprise a shielding factor of up to 100, [0058], and thereby if the shielding factor is 100 it then becomes an electromagnetically inert layer); and an innermost MU-metal layer (Alford, wherein the shielding layers may be any conventional shield material such as Mu-metal, [0059]); and a cap of electromagnetically inert attached to one end of the tubular body, wherein the cap has a perimeter greater than a perimeter of the tubular body (see Alford, fig 7B in which it is shown that the inert layer 740 of the shield body is of a larger perimeter than that of the smaller perimeter tub body 738, effectively creating a cap).
Alford does not teach wherein the electromagnetic shield stacks are located at opposite respective ends, individually comprised of two or more uniform thickness layers, and arranged such that the airgap is coextensive within an inner cross-sectional area.
However, the analogous electromagnetic shielding container which is taught by Bae does disclose electromagnetic shield stacks are located at opposite respective ends (see from Bae fig 2 which discloses two distinct electromagnetic shields on either side of the shielded device F, thereby being opposite respective ends), individually comprised of two or more uniform thickness layers (see in which the shield stacks of Bae contain multiple uniform layers such as the metal coating K and ferrite layer L, [0007]), and arranged such that the airgap is coextensive within an inner cross-sectional area (see from fig 2, in which Bae shows that the two distinct shields on either side of the device F are separated by an air gap in between and in which the air gap is coextensive within the cross-sectional area of the shielded layers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the electromagnetic shield plug of Alford to contain the multiple layers of shielded material separated by a coextensive air gap as taught by Bae, in order to allow for greater electromagnetic shielding capabilities and greater control of the attenuating fields as taught by Bae, [0015].
Alford nor Bae teach wherein the outer electric field attenuator layer comprises a copper mesh.
However, this would have been an obvious material choice to use in the art as seen in the analogous noise compression system of Faraji which uses electromagnetic flux suppression similar to the present claimed plug in order to compress and suppress noise, in which it is taught that the ferrite or Mu-metals can be used in conjunction with a copper mesh layer to achieve proper electromagnetic shielding, [0089].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the electromagnetic shielding plug structure of Alford and Bae with that of the taught shielding layers in specific the copper mesh layer disclosed by Faraji as it is just another material design choice to achieve proper electromagnetic shielding as disclosed by Faraji, [0089].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 10 in view of the examiner interview 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.
With regards to the newly amended limitations of claims 1 and 10, as discussed in the examiner interview, the examiner agrees with the applicant that the prior art of record of Alford alone does not teach wherein the electromagnetic shield stacks are located at opposite respective ends, individually comprised of two or more uniform thickness layers, and arranged such that the airgap is coextensive within an inner cross-sectional area. However that argument has been found moot due further search and consideration, necessitated by the amended claim limitations, where it has been found that the analogous electromagnetic shielding container which is taught by the new prior art of record Bae does disclose electromagnetic shield stacks are located at opposite respective ends (see from Bae fig 2 which discloses two distinct electromagnetic shields on either side of the shielded device F, thereby being opposite respective ends), individually comprised of two or more uniform thickness layers (see in which the shield stacks of Bae contain multiple uniform layers such as the metal coating K and ferrite layer L, [0007]), and arranged such that the airgap is coextensive within an inner cross-sectional area (see from fig 2, in which Bae shows that the two distinct shields on either side of the device F are separated by an air gap in between and in which the air gap is coextensive within the cross-sectional area of the shielded layers). Therefore, as Bae does disclose the amended limitations as presently claimed, the amended claims 1 and 10 remain rejected under the new prior art of record rejection of Alford in view of Bae set forth in the present office action.
As no further arguments or remarks have been presented for any of the other claims, they too remain rejected in the present office action due to their dependency on the rejected claims 1 and 10.
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 KYLE M BROWN whose telephone number is (703)756-4534. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00pm EST, Mon-Fri, alternating Fridays off.
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, Linda Dvorak can be reached at 571-272-4764. 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.
/LINDA C DVORAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/KYLE M. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 3794