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 § 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, and 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garver et al. (10,770,840).
With regard to claim 1, Garver teaches, as shown in figures 1-10 and column 6 lines 16-24: “A shielding arrangement 32 and 46 for electrical or electromagnetic shielding, comprising: a first shielding body 46; and a second shielding body 32 connected to the first shielding body 46 to form a shielding volume (interior of 32 and 46 in figure 4) open at a pair of ends, the first shielding body 46 and the second shielding body 32 are each a different electrically conductive material (taught in column 6 lines 16-24)”.
Garver does not teach: “the first shielding body is a self-contained body and continuously encloses the shielding volume in a circumferential direction”. However, Garver teaches multiple shielding bodies 32 and 36 continuously enclosing a shielding volume in a circumferential direction. 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 shape of the first shielding body to be a self-contained body enclosing the shielding volume in order to form a good connection between shielding bodies (Garver, column 5 lines 42-47). Also, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
With regard to claim 2, Garver teaches: “The shielding arrangement of claim 1”, as shown above.
Garver also teaches, as shown in figures 1-10: “the second shielding body 32 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 54 facing each other across a seam in figure 6) of the first shielding body and/or the second shielding body 32”.
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 46 and the second shielding body 32 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 6, Garver teaches: “The shielding arrangement of claim 5”, as shown above.
Garver also teaches, as shown in figures 1-10: “wherein the second shielding body 32 has a larger dimension in the direction of passage than the first shielding body 46”.
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 46 and the second shielding body 32 have interlocking or overlapping contours (58 and 48)”.
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 46 and the second shielding body 32 are connected to one another in at least one of a form-locking manner (shown with interlocking features 58 and 48 in figure 3), a material-locking manner, and a force-locking manner”.
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 36, the second shielding body 46 is arranged between and connected to the first shielding body 46 and the third shielding body 36”.
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 46 and/or the third shielding body has a contact arrangement 56”.
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 first shielding body has a ring of bent contact springs. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to duplicate the bent contact springs onto the third shielding body in order to fixedly attach the third shielding body 36 to the ferrule 40 of the cable 18, as shown in figures 3-4 and taught in column 5 lines 45-47 and column 6 lines 24-29. 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.
With regard to claim 12, Garver teaches: “The shielding arrangement of claim 11”, as shown above.
Garver also teaches, as shown in figures 1-10: “wherein the ring of bent contact springs 56 is bent toward the second shielding body 32”.
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 46, the second shielding body 32, and the third 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 14, Garver teaches: “The shielding arrangement of claim 13”, as shown above.
Garver also teaches, as shown in figures 1-10: “wherein the second shielding body 32 has a larger dimension in the direction of passage than the first shielding body 46 and/or the third shielding body 36”.
With regard to claim 15, Garver teaches, as shown in figures 1-10 and column 6 lines 16-24: “A shielded connector 16, comprising: a connector housing 32, 36, and 46; a shielding volume (interior of 32 and 46 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 46 and a second shielding body 32 connected to the first shielding body 46, the first shielding body 46 and the second shielding body 32 are each a different electrically conductive material (taught in column 6 lines 16-24)”.
Garver does not teach: “the first shielding body is a self-contained body and continuously encloses the shielding volume in a circumferential direction”. However, Garver teaches multiple shielding bodies 32 and 36 continuously enclosing a shielding volume in a circumferential direction. 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 shape of the first shielding body to be a self-contained body enclosing the shielding volume in order to form a good connection between shielding bodies (Garver, column 5 lines 42-47). Also, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
With regard to claim 16, Garver teaches, as shown in figures 1-10 and column 6 lines 16-24: “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 46 and a second shielding body 32 connected to the first shielding body 46 to form a shielding volume, the first shielding body 46 and the second shielding body 32 are each a different electrically conductive material (taught in column 6 lines 16-24), 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)”.
Garver does not teach: “the first shielding body is a self-contained body and continuously encloses the shielding volume in a circumferential direction”. However, Garver teaches multiple shielding bodies 32 and 36 continuously enclosing a shielding volume in a circumferential direction. 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 shape of the first shielding body to be a self-contained body enclosing the shielding volume in order to form a good connection between shielding bodies (Garver, column 5 lines 42-47). Also, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
With regard to claim 17, Garver teaches, as shown in figures 1-10 and column 6 lines 16-24: “A kit for a shielding arrangement, comprising: a first shielding body 46; and a… second shielding” body 32 “having a… length in a direction of passage (left-to-right direction in figure 2)”.
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).
Garver also does not teach: “the first shielding body is a self-contained body and continuously encloses the shielding volume in a circumferential direction”. However, Garver teaches multiple shielding bodies 32 and 36 continuously enclosing a shielding volume in a circumferential direction. 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 shape of the first shielding body to be a self-contained body enclosing the shielding volume in order to form a good connection between shielding bodies (Garver, column 5 lines 42-47). Also, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
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 32 continuously encloses the shielding volume”.
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claims 1 and 15-17, the Applicant argues that the prior art references do not teach “the first shielding body is a self-contained body and continuously encloses the shielding volume in a circumferential direction”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since this is a mere change in the shape of the first shielding body and would be an obvious modification. Also, The Primary reference teaches shielding members connected to each other that have these features which also render these limitations obvious.
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 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