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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-9) and Species A2 and B3 (encompassing claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 12/04/2025 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I, II and III clearly overlap one another and that the examiner has failed to provide appropriate explanation with respect to a search and examination burden as required by MPEP § 808.02 and that merely providing a boilerplate set of reasons as to why serious search and/or examination burden could exist by the examiner is not sufficient.
This is not found persuasive because the examiner has clearly identified different groups and corresponding classification. Furthermore, the examiner has clearly indicated the substantial detail regarding different characteristics, including materially different designs, which are not shared between the groups and species. In addition, the Applicant cannot overcome the fact that consideration of additional claims drawn to one or more distinct groups of inventions and species mandates different fields of search with possibly hundreds to thousands of patents and time-consuming evaluation of those patents which give rise to a sizable burden on the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it appears to be in a claim format rather than in a narrative form with multiple short sentences. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 2, the limitation “attenuation kit, comprising:” is amended to - - attenuation kit, the kit comprising: - -.
In claims 1 and 9, the limitation “RF” needs to be amended to “radio frequency” or “radio frequency (RF)” to avoid any ambiguity.
In claim 1, line 7, the limitation “and radio frequency tape,” is amended to - - and a radio frequency tape, - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1, lines 3-4 recites the limitation “configured to couple a first radio frequency shielding gasket” which is unclear as if the first gasket is being positively recited as part of the claimed kit or not.
Claim 1 recites a kit for RF shielding a door frame in the preamble. However, line 3 of claim 1 recites “an astragal retainer fixed to a door” which is unclear as if the door is part of the kit or not. Similarly, the limitation of “the door and door frame are electrically bonded” is confusing and unclear if both of these elements are positively recited in the claim or only recited as intended use.
Claim 1 is written in an inconsistent format which is confusing and unclear as what elements are part of the kit and what elements are part of the configured language with intended use limitations. Claim 1 needs to be written as a kit comprising elements a, b, c, and d wherein each element is configured to be coupled or to be attached or to be applied to certain elements.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “a Z bracket” which is unclear if this bracket is positively recited and if so, where exactly this bracket is attached to with respect to the door and door frame.
For examination purposes, the kit of claim 1 comprises of a retainer, radio frequency shielding gaskets, a Z bracket and a radio frequency tape.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the door surface” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the door surface” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the gaskets” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the surface of the door” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9, recites the alternative conjunctive form “and/or” followed by “and” which makes it unclear if the second “and” is part of the “or” alternative or it is in addition to the “and/or” alternative. The examiner suggests using a conventional form of “at least one of [A], [B], and [C]” to possibly overcome this rejection.
Claim 9 which depends from claim 3 recites the limitation “further comprising RF peel and stick tape” in line 1. However, claim 3 already recites “RF peel and stick tape” which is unclear if the tape in claim 9 is an additional tape or the same as in claim 3.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the offset bracket must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnock et al. (US 11,767,707, hereinafter “Warnock”) in view of Kausch (US 4,259,843).
As applied to claim 1, Warnock teaches a radio attenuation kit for shielding a door frame from radio frequency, the kit includes an astragal retainer (39), radio frequency shielding gaskets (1st gasket 37-1, 2nd gasket 37-2, Fig. 2), and a Z bracket (bracket 33 made of two Z-shaped profiles, see claim 1, Figs. 4 and 5). However, Warnock does not explicitly teach a radio frequency tape.
Kausch teaches a double shielding of an electronic device 134 which is surrounded by two electrically conductive enclosures, an outer enclosure housing 106, and an inner enclosure card cage 130; which form a double electrostatic shield against radio-frequency interference and high frequency transients. In addition, the periphery of housing door 112D is provided with conductive radio frequency interference (rfi) gasket tape 160D and the door frame on housing 106 is provided with a cooperating conductive rfi gasket tape 160H which engages tape 160D to create an electrostatic seal around the door 112D-housing 106 interface (col. 5, lines 50-62). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate into the radio frequency attenuation kit of Warnock a radio frequency tape, as taught by Kausch, as an effective means of providing additional barrier at the doorway ensuring that the room maintains adequate shielding characteristics (Warnock, col. 1, lines 34-43).
The limitations of “is configured to couple a first radio frequency shielding gasket such that the first gasket overlaps a seam between the door and the door frame and the door and door frame are electrically bonded” and “which contacts the door when in a closed position, the second gasket is fixed between a Z bracket and radio frequency tape, wherein the radio frequency tape is applied to the door frame” are considered to be intended use limitations. Although the recitations have been fully considered, they carry limited patentable weight. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114-II. In the instant case, the apparatus of Warnock and Kausch meets all of the structural limitations, as claimed, and is capable of performing the limitations above.
As applied to claim 8, the combination of Warnock and Kausch teaches the invention cited with the radio frequency attenuation kit including the second gasket and radio frequency tape.
The limitations of “the second radio frequency shielding gasket contacts the radio frequency tape” is considered to be intended use limitation. Although the recitations have been fully considered, they carry limited patentable weight. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114-II. In the instant case, the apparatus of Warnock and Kausch meets all of the structural limitations, as claimed, and is capable of performing the limitation above.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnock et al. (US 11,277,947, hereinafter “Warnock in view of Kausch (US 4,259,843) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LV et al. (CN 108093593A, hereinafter “LV”).
As applied to claim 2, the combination of Warnock and Kausch teaches the invention cited including a radio frequency attenuation kit including a Z bracket but does not explicitly teach an L bracket.
LV teaches an electric enclosure having a sealing arrangement with a Z bracket (25, Fig. 19) and an L bracket (24, Fig. 19) covering a portion of the Z bracket wherein a sealing film (26) is attached in between the two brackets as the two brackets are fixed to one another by bolt/nut (27, English machine translation, page 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ into the radio frequency attenuation kit of Warnock/Kausch an L bracket to cover portion of the Z bracket while being fixed to the Z bracket and fixing a sealing film in between, as taught by LV, as an effective means of providing a support to capture the additional sealing means hence, ensuring that the room maintains adequate shielding characteristics.
The limitation of “configured to cover the Z bracket and fix to the door frame” is considered to be intended use limitation. Although the recitations have been fully considered, they carry limited patentable weight. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114-II. In the instant case, the apparatus of Warnock/Kausch/LV meets all of the structural limitations, as claimed, and is capable of performing the limitations above.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnock et al. (US 11,277,947, hereinafter “Warnock”) in view of Kausch (US 4,259,843) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gallagher (US 5,262,588).
As applied to claim 3, the combination of Warnock and Kausch teaches the invention cited including Warnock further teaches an offset bracket (39-3) fixed to the door (Fig. 2) configured to couple a third radio frequency shielding gasket (37-3) to the door surface (surface of 15). However, the combination does not explicitly teach an a RF peel and stick tape between the door surface and the offset bracket.
Gallagher teaches an aluminum foil strip that is provided with adhesive strips on one face surrounding the strip of foil. The strip of foil is then positionable and attachable to an electronic cabinet frame over exposed raw metal areas for intimate electrical contact when the cabinet door is closed. This strip of foil provides electrical continuity between the frame and door as well as a seal against EMI/RFI at the cabinet/door interface (abstract). Gallagher teaches that double face pressure sensitive adhesive tape (another name for peel and stick tape) is used to attach to sealing element (metal foil) to an enclosure of an electronic device to forma shield and protect the electronic device from EMI/RFI and to improve the performance of the electronic device (col. 1. Lies 18-29, claims 1-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ into the radio frequency attenuation kit of Warnock/Kausch a RF peel and stick tape (or an RF double face pressure sensitive adhesive tape), as taught by Gallagher, as an effective means of attaching the shielding gasket to the bracket/door in a simple and repeatable manner.
As applied to claim 4, the combination of Warnock, Kausch and Gallagher teaches the invention cited including Warnock teaches a third radio frequency shielding gasket (37-3) extending downward (Fig. 2) and the door frame (13) has a threshold (21, Figs. 1 and 2).
The limitation of “contacts a threshold when the door is in a closed position” is considered to be intended use limitation. Although the recitations have been fully considered, they carry limited patentable weight. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114-II. In the instant case, the apparatus of Warnock/Kausch/Gallagher meets all of the structural limitations, as claimed, and is capable of performing the limitations above.
As applied to claim 5, the combination of Warnock, Kausch and Gallagher teaches the invention cited including Warnock teaches RF shield integrated into the walls, ceiling and flooring of the room (which implies that a radio frequency shielding gasket is embedded into the floor which would be between the threshold and the floor (col. 8, lines 37-47).
As applied to claim 9, the combination of Warnock, Kausch and Gallagher teaches the invention cited with the attenuation kit including RF peel and stick tape and first, second and third radio frequency shielding gaskets.
The limitation of “contacts a threshold when the door is in a closed position” is considered to be intended use limitation. Although the recitations have been fully considered, they carry limited patentable weight. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114-II. In the instant case, the apparatus of Warnock/Kausch/Gallagher meets all of the structural limitations, as claimed, and is capable of performing the limitations above.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnock et al. (US 11,277,947, hereinafter “Warnock”) in view of Kausch (US 4,259,843) and Gallagher (US 5,262,588) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Reis (US 5,524,908).
As applied to claim 6, the combination of Warnock, Kausch and Gallagher teaches the invention cited including radio frequency shielding gasket but does not explicitly teach the gasket is a multi-layered gasket.
Reis teaches multi-layer EMI/RFI gasket shield used (title). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ a multi-layered gasket for the RFI gasket of the attenuation kit of Warnock/Kausch/Gallagher, as taught by Reis, considering many advantages of a multi-layered gasket including enhanced shielding effectiveness with higher attenuation of radio frequency waves by creating more interfaces which enhances the absorption of the RF waves and enhanced mechanical properties by improving the tensile strength and tear resistance, to name a few.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnock et al. (US 11,277,947, hereinafter “Warnock”) in view of Kausch (US 4,259,843) and Gallagher (US 5,262,588) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Buonanno (US 4,857,668).
As applied to claim 7, the combination of Warnock, Kausch and Gallagher teaches the invention cited including radio frequency shielding gasket but does not explicitly teach the gasket includes a foam core.
Buonanno teaches multi-function gasket for electrical apparatus, operation of which tends to generate or be adversely affected by electromagnetic and radio frequency (EMI/RFI) wherein the gasket includes a foam core (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ a gasket with foam core for the RFI gasket of the attenuation kit of Warnock/Kausch/Gallagher, as taught by Buonanno, considering many advantages of a gasket with foam core including enhanced conformability to irregular surfaces, low closure force, and excellent shielding durability under repeated vibration and deformation, to name a few.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Timieski (US 5,977,480) teaches grounding and RFI isolation for control station (title, abstract).
McIlwraith (US 5,194,691) teaches gasket and cabinet for providing EMI/RFI shielding (title, abstract).
Hurzeler (US 6,519,899) teaches a radio frequency shielding and acoustically insulated door (title, abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 03/06/2026