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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 13, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garver et al. (10,770,840).
With regard to claim 1, Garver teaches, as shown in figures 1-10 and column 5 line 38 - column 6 line 24: “A shielding arrangement 32 and 36 for electrical or electromagnetic shielding, comprising: a first shielding body 32; and a second shielding body 36 connected to the first shielding body 32, the first shielding body 32 and the second shielding body 36 together form a shielding volume (interior of 32 and 36 in figure 4) open at a pair of ends, an element to be electrically shielded 28 is arranged in the shielding volume, the first shielding body 32 and the second shielding body 36 are each a different electrically conductive material (taught in column 5 line 38 - column 6 lines 24 that the first shielding body is made of a plated copper material and the second shielding body is made of an iron containing material), the first shielding body 32 is a self-contained body and continuously encloses the shielding volume in a circumferential direction”.
With regard to claim 2, Garver teaches: “The shielding arrangement of claim 1”, as shown above.
Garver does not teach: “the second shielding body 36 is a self-contained body in the circumferential direction”.
With regard to claim 3, Garver teaches: “The shielding arrangement of claim 2”, as shown above.
Garver also teaches, as shown in figures 1-10: “wherein the self-contained body is formed by connecting a pair of free ends (two ends of 34 facing each other across the seam in 34 figure 6) of the first shielding body 32 and/or the second shielding body”.
With regard to claim 5, Garver teaches: “The shielding arrangement of claim 1”, as shown above.
Garver also teaches, as shown in figures 1-10: “wherein the first shielding body 32 and the second shielding body 36 are arranged sequentially along a direction of passage (left-to-right direction in figure 2) facing from a first open end of the shielding volume to a second open end of the shielding volume”.
With regard to claim 7, Garver teaches: “The shielding arrangement of claim 1”, as shown above.
Garver also teaches, as shown in figures 1-10: “wherein the first shielding body 32 and the second shielding body 36 have interlocking or overlapping (overlapping portions of 32 and 36 in figure 4) contours”.
With regard to claim 8, Garver teaches: “The shielding arrangement of claim 1”, as shown above.
Garver also teaches, as shown in figures 1-10: “wherein the first shielding body 32 and the second shielding body 36 are connected to one another in at least one of a form-locking manner, a material-locking manner, and a force-locking manner (shown with force-locking of 32 and 36 in figure 4)”.
With regard to claim 9, Garver teaches: “The shielding arrangement of claim 1”, as shown above.
Garver also teaches, as shown in figures 1-10: “further comprising a third shielding body 40, the second shielding body 36 is arranged between and connected to the first shielding body 32 and the third shielding body 40”.
With regard to claim 10, Garver teaches: “The shielding arrangement of claim 9”, as shown above.
Garver also teaches, as shown in figures 1-10: “wherein the first shielding body 32 and/or the third shielding body 46 has a contact arrangement (portion of 32 contacting 46 in figure 4)”.
With regard to claim 13, Garver teaches: “The shielding arrangement of claim 9”, as shown above.
Garver also teaches, as shown in figures 1-10: “wherein the first shielding body 32, the second shielding body 36, and the third shielding body 40 are arranged sequentially along a direction of passage facing from a first open end of the shielding volume to a second open end of the shielding volume”.
With regard to claim 15, Garver teaches, as shown in figures 1-10 and column 5 line 38 - column 6 line 24: “A shielded connector 16, comprising: a connector housing 32, 36, and 46; a shielding volume (interior of 32 and 36 in figure 4) at least partially enclosed by the connector housing; and a shielding arrangement 32, 36, and 46 enclosing and electrically shielding the shielding volume, the shielding arrangement includes a first shielding body 32 and a second shielding body 36 connected to the first shielding body 32, the first shielding body 32 and the second shielding body 36 together form the shielding volume, an element 28 to be electrically shielded is arranged in the shielding volume, the first shielding body 32 and the second shielding body 36 are each a different electrically conductive material (taught in column 5 line 38 - column 6 lines 24 that the first shielding body is made of a plated copper material and the second shielding body is made of an iron containing material), the first shielding body 32 is a self-contained body and continuously encloses the shielding volume in a circumferential direction”.
With regard to claim 16, Garver teaches, as shown in figures 1-10 and column 5 line 38 - column 6 line 24: “A shielded connection 16, comprising: a housing element 42 having a receiving opening (left opening of 42 in figure 4); and a shielding arrangement 32, 36, and 46 arranged in the receiving opening, the shielding arrangement includes a first shielding body 32 and a second shielding body 36 connected to the first shielding body 32, the first shielding body 32 and the second shielding body 36 together form a shielding volume (interior of 32 and 36 in figure 4), an element 28 to be electrically shielded is arranged in the shielding volume, the first shielding body 32 and the second shielding body 36 are each a different electrically conductive material (taught in column 5 line 38 - column 6 lines 24 that the first shielding body is made of a plated copper material and the second shielding body is made of an iron containing material), the shielding arrangement is mechanically and electrically connected to the housing element 42 by a plurality of contact springs or by a material bond (shown in figure 4), the first shielding body 32 is a self-contained body and continuously encloses the shielding volume in a circumferential direction”.
With regard to claim 18, Garver teaches: “The shielding arrangement of claim 1”, as shown above.
Garver also teaches, as shown in figures 1-10: “wherein the second shielding body 36 continuously encloses the shielding volume”.
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 6, 11-12, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garver et al. (10,770,840).
With regard to claim 6, Garver teaches: “The shielding arrangement of claim 5”, as shown above.
Garver does not teach: “wherein the second shielding body has a larger dimension in the direction of passage than the first shielding body”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the size of the second shielding body to have a larger dimension in the direction of passage than the first shielding body in order to increase the area of contact with the shield of the cable. Also, 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).
With regard to claim 11, Garver teaches: “The shielding arrangement of claim 10”, as shown above.
Garver does not teach: “wherein the contact arrangement and/or a further contact arrangement of the third shielding body has a ring of bent contact springs”. However, Garver does teach the use of a ring of bent contact springs 48 on a shielding body 46. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a ring of bent contact springs on the third shielding body to make intimate contact with the other shielding bodies (Garver, column 5 line 63 - column 6 line 4).
With regard to claim 12, Garver teaches: “The shielding arrangement of claim 11”, as shown above.
Garver does not teach: “wherein the ring of bent contact springs is bent toward the second shielding body”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a ring of bent contact springs on the third shielding body to make intimate contact with the second shielding body (Garver, column 5 line 63 - column 6 line 4).
With regard to claim 14, Garver teaches: “The shielding arrangement of claim 13”, as shown above.
Garver does not teach: “wherein the second shielding body has a larger dimension in the direction of passage than the first shielding body and/or the third shielding body”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the size of the second shielding body to have a larger dimension in the direction of passage than the first shielding body in order to increase the area of contact with the shield of the cable. Also, 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).
With regard to claim 17, Garver teaches, as shown in figures 1-10 and column 5 line 38 - column 6 line 24: “A kit for a shielding arrangement, comprising: a first shielding body 32; and a plurality of second shielding 36… having a different length in a direction of passage (left-to-right direction in figure 2)… the second shielding 36… is… connectable to the first shielding body 32, the first shielding body 32 and the respective second shielding body 36 together form a shielding volume (interior of 32 and 36 in figure 4), an element 28 to be electrically shielded is arranged in the shielding volume, the first shielding body 32 is a self-contained body and continuously encloses the shielding volume in a circumferential direction”.
Garver does not teach a plurality of second shielding bodies each having a different length in the direction of passage, each of the second shielding bodies is interchangeably connectable to the first shielding body”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to duplicate the second shielding bodies in order to replace the second shielding body if it wears out. Also, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to change the length of the duplicate second shielding bodies in order to connect between different cables and mating connectors. Also, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 and 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).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garver et al. (10,770,840) in view of De Blieck et al. (2011/0250790).
With regard to claim 4, Garver teaches: “The shielding arrangement of claim 3”, as shown above.
Garver does not teach: “wherein the pair of free ends of the first shielding body and/or the second shielding body are connected by at least one of interlocking joint structures, welding, riveting, and caulking”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, de Blieck teaches, as shown in figures 3A-3C: “wherein the pair of free ends (left and right ends of 3 in figure 3C) of the first shielding body 3 and/or the second shielding body are connected by at least one of interlocking joint structures 14 and 13, welding, riveting, and caulking”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of de Blieck with the invention of Garver in order to hold the first shielding body in bent shape shown in figure 3A (de Blieck, paragraph 65).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garver et al. (10,770,840) in view of Schops et al. (12,431,662).
With regard to claim 19, Garver teaches: “The shielding arrangement of claim 1”, as shown above.
Garver does not teach: “wherein the first shielding body has a plurality of contact springs each having a fixed and a free end, each fixed end is fixed to the first shielding body and each free end is set apart from the first shielding body”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Schops teaches, as shown in figure 1: “wherein the first shielding body 1 has a plurality of contact springs 5 each having a fixed (lower end of 5 in figure 1) and a free (upper end of 5 in figure 1) end, each fixed end is fixed to the first shielding body 2 and each free end is set apart from the first shielding body 2”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Schops with the invention of Garver in order to establish electrical contact with a mating shield (Schops, column 5 lines 27-30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 15-17 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M KRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-0277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at (571)270-3119. 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.
/JUSTIN M KRATT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights