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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 12, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 8, 12, and 27 have been amended, claim 5 has been canceled, and new claim 28 has been added. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 12-16, and 21-28 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every objection and §112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 18, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed March 12, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claim 1 under §102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under §103 in view of the combined teachings of Khan and Hauff. Khan and Hauff teach, or render obvious, all of the limitations of claim 1 as described below.
Applicant’s arguments, filed March 12, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 8 under §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hauff have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claim 8 under §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hauff has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed March 12, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 8 under §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khan have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Khan does not disclose a printed circuit board and trace positioned in an enclosure, and a perforated sheet is external to the enclosure.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Khan discloses a printed circuit board (circuit board 12) and a trace (electrical trace 14) positioned in an enclosure (metallic shield 20), and a perforated sheet (layer of absorbing material 27) external to the enclosure (see paragraph 0109). Applicant asserts that “the printed circuit board 12 is not disposed in the shield 20.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the entire circuit board 12 is not within metallic shield 20, a portion of circuit board 12 is positioned within metallic shield 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khan (US 2020/0329593 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Khan discloses an apparatus comprising:
a printed circuit board (circuit board 12) having a trace that is configured to transmit a signal (electrical trace 14);
a perforated sheet (layer of absorbing material 27) positioned over the trace (14), wherein the perforated sheet (27) includes a hole that exposes the trace (14) through the perforated sheet (see Fig. 2C showing multiple holes in layer of absorbing material 27); and
an enclosure (metallic shield 20),
wherein the printed circuit board (12) and the trace (14) are positioned in the enclosure (see Fig. 2C showing a portion of circuit board 12 and electrical trace 14 positioned in metallic shield 20), and the perforated sheet is external to the enclosure (see paragraph 0109 stating that the layer of absorbing material 27 may be placed on the top of metallic shield 20).
Regarding claim 14, Khan discloses all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above.
Khan further discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the perforated sheet (27) comprises an additional hole offset from the trace (see Fig. 2C showing layer of absorbing material 27 having multiple holes offset from trace 14).
Regarding claim 16, Khan discloses all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above.
Khan further discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the perforated sheet (27) is made of a metal (see paragraph 0033 stating that layer of absorbing material 27 may include NiFe composites), a resin, a nitrile, a polymer, or any combination thereof.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Krehbiel et al. (US 6,206,728 B1), hereinafter Krehbiel.
Regarding claim 12, Khan discloses all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above. Khan lacks a specific teaching that the enclosure surrounds an entirety of the printed circuit board.
Krehbiel discloses an enclosure (connector system 10) that surrounds an entirety of a printed circuit board (printed circuit board 14; see Fig. 1).
Khan and Krehbiel are considered to be analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to have the enclosure surround an entirety of the printed circuit board. Doing so would accommodate and protect the entire circuit board.
Regarding claim 13, Khan in view of Krehbiel teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as stated above. Khan in view of Krehbiel further teaches the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the enclosure (Krehbiel: 10) comprises a chassis (Krehbiel: housing 12) and a chassis mount (Krehbiel: mounting bosses 30a) extending from the chassis (Krehbiel: see Fig. 1), and the perforated sheet (Khan: 27; Krehbiel: cover 18) is engaged with the chassis mount to couple to the enclosure (Krehbiel: see col 2, lines 58-60).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Schmitt et al. (US 2015/0072561 A1), hereinafter Schmitt.
Khan discloses all of the limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Khan lacks a specific teaching that its additional hole provides access to an interface of the printed circuit board.
Schmitt discloses a printed circuit board (circuit board 15) positioned within an enclosure (cage 36) and a perforated sheet (EMI absorber 100) disposed on an exterior of the enclosure (36). The perforated sheet (100) comprises four holes (openings 156) that provide access to an interface of the printed circuit board (see paragraph 0030).
Schmitt is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to configure one of the additional holes to provide access to an interface of the printed circuit board. Doing so would allow a connector to interface and communicate with the circuit board (Schmitt: see paragraph 0030).
Claims 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hauff et al. (US 2022/0192009 A1), hereinafter Hauff.
Regarding claim 24, Khan discloses all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above. Khan fails to teach that the perforated sheet is positioned directly on the trace.
Hauff teaches disposing an electromagnetic absorber (second epoxy-based layer 120b; see paragraph 0012) directly on an electrical trace (traces 110) in order to attenuate electromagnetic leakage (see paragraph 0009).
Hauff is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to dispose the perforated layer of absorbing material 27 taught by Khan directly on the trace. Doing so would help to attenuate electromagnetic leakage from the trace (Hauff: see paragraph 0009).
Regarding claim 27, Khan discloses all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above. Khan lacks a specific teaching that the printed circuit board includes a ground layer, and the perforated sheet and the ground layer are grounded to one another.
Hauff discloses a printed circuit board (PWB 100) that includes a ground layer (ground plane layer 130b) and an electromagnetic absorber (120b). Hauff teaches grounding the electromagnetic absorber and the ground layer to one another (see paragraph 0013).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to ground the perforated layer of absorbing material 27 taught by Khan to a ground layer of the printed circuit board. Doing so would ensure that the perforated sheet does not accumulate electric charge.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 6,590,466 B2), hereinafter Lin.
Regarding claim 25, Khan discloses all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above. Khan lacks a specific teaching that the printed circuit board has an additional trace configured to transmit another signal, and the perforated sheet is positioned over the additional trace.
Lin teaches a circuit board (circuit board 30) having multiple traces configured to transmit multiple signals (signal conductors 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, and 70) and a perforated sheet positioned over the traces (upper shielding plane 28). The perforated sheet contains multiple holes (void opening patterns 82) that expose the traces through the perforated sheet (28; see Fig. 2).
Lin is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the apparatus taught by Khan to include an additional trace configured to transmit another signal with the perforated sheet also positioned over the additional trace and exposing the additional trace through one of the holes in the perforated sheet. Doing so would allow multiple signals to be transmitted while ensuring that they are shielded by the perforated sheet.
Regarding claim 26, Khan in view of Lin teaches all of the limitations of claim 25 as stated above. Khan in view of Lin further teaches the apparatus of claim 25, wherein the perforated sheet includes an additional hole that exposes the additional trace through the perforated sheet (see claim 25 rejection above).
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 21-23, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan in view of Hauff.
Regarding claim 1, Khan discloses an apparatus comprising:
a layer of a printed circuit board (12);
a trace routed along the layer and configured to transmit a signal (14); and
an absorber (27), wherein a second portion of the trace extends beyond an outside edge of the absorber (see Fig. 2C showing electrical trace 14 extending beyond the layer of absorbing material 27), the absorber is formed of material that absorbs electromagnetic emissions from the trace (see paragraph 0033), the absorber comprises a plurality of openings, and an opening of the plurality of openings overlaps with the trace (see Fig. 2C showing the layer of absorbing material 27 having a plurality of openings with multiple openings overlapping with electrical trace 14).
Khan fails to disclose that its absorber is positioned in contact with a first portion of the
trace.
Hauff discloses an electrical trace (traces 110) routed along a layer of circuit board (first epoxy-based layer 120a) and an absorber (second epoxy-based layer 120b) formed of a material that absorbs electromagnetic emissions from the trace (from paragraph 0012: “[T]he epoxy-based layers 120 are embedded with an RF absorber material. The RF absorber material may be ferrite or iron according to exemplary embodiments.”). Hauff teaches positioning the absorber to contact the trace (from paragraph 0012: “A second epoxy-based layer 120b is arranged to sandwich the traces 110. Specifically, a first surface 111b, which is opposite the second surface 112b … is arranged in contract with the first surface 111a of the first epoxy-based layer 120a.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the apparatus disclosed by Khan by placing its layer of absorbing material 27 directly on a portion of the trace. Doing so would help to attenuate electromagnetic leakage from the trace (Hauff: see paragraph 0009).
Regarding claim 2, Khan in view of Hauff teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Khan in view of Hauff further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a cage (Khan: metallic shield 20) enclosing the trace (Khan: see Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 6, Khan in view of Hauff teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Khan in view of Hauff further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of openings is arranged in multiple rows and columns at least partially spanning a base of the absorber (Khan: see Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 7, Khan in view of Hauff teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Khan in view of Hauff further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the opening of the plurality of openings is circular, hexagonal, or rectangular (Khan: see Fig. 2C showing circular openings).
Regarding claim 21, Khan in view of Hauff teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Khan in view of Hauff further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the trace extends along an axis (Khan: from paragraph 0031: “FIG. 1 is a schematic view of a circuit board 12 with an electrical trace 14 routed on a substrate along the x axis from one end to another end.”), and the plurality of openings of the absorber comprises a row of openings offset from one another along the axis (see Fig. 2C showing multiple rows of openings offset from one another along the x axis).
Regarding claim 22, Khan in view of Hauff teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Khan in view of Hauff further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the trace extends along a first axis (x axis; see paragraph 0031), and the plurality of openings of the absorber comprises a row of openings offset from one another along a second axis that is transverse to the first axis (see Fig. 2C showing multiple rows of openings offset from one another along an axis transverse to the x axis).
Regarding claim 23, Khan in view of Hauff teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Khan in view of Hauff further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, comprising an additional layer of the printed circuit board (Khan: see paragraph 0108 disclosing the use of a circuit board having a ground plane on its bottom side; Hauff: ground plane layer 130b), wherein the additional layer and the absorber are electrically coupled to a common ground (Hauff: see paragraph 0013).
Regarding claim 28, Khan in view of Hauff teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Khan in view of Hauff further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the layer of the printed circuit board (12) is an outer layer (see Fig. 2C).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan in view of Hauff as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Schmitt.
Khan in view of Hauff teach all of the limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Khan in view of Hauff lacks a specific teaching that the absorber is connected to an exterior surface of the cage.
Schmitt discloses an electromagnetic absorber (EMI absorber 100) connected to an exterior surface of a cage (cage 36; see paragraph 0027 and Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to connect the absorber to an exterior surface of the cage. Doing so would make the absorber easier to remove and replace.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan in view of Hauff and Schmitt as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Hemp et al. (US 12,158,627 B2), hereinafter Hemp.
Khan in view of Hauff and Schmitt teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Khan in view of Hauff and Schmitt lacks a specific teaching that the absorber comprises a flange that extends over and engages with a portion of the cage to connect the absorber to the cage.
Hemp discloses an electromagnetic absorber (EMI absorber 2202) having flanged ends (see Fig. 22B).
Hemp is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the absorber to have a flange to extend over and engage with the sides of the cage. Doing so would help more securely attach the absorber to the cage.
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 ROSS TERRY MULARSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Imani Hayman can be reached at (571)270-5528. 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.
/R.T.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights