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 without traverse of Invention I and Group I, in the reply filed on November 4, 2025, is acknowledged. Accordingly, Applicant has canceled claims 17-20 drawn to unelected Invention II, and has canceled claims 9-11 drawn to unelected Group II. New claims 21-27 have been added. Claims 1-8, 12-16, and 21-27 remain pending in the application.
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 “cage enclosing the trace and the absorber” must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. 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 Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: Please correct the claim to read “The apparatus ….”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 2 reads: “The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a cage enclosing the trace and the absorber.” Figures 2 and 3 of the present application are the only figures that show the cage (also referred to as enclosure 300). These figures show the absorber (250 in Fig. 2 and 304 in Fig. 3) disposed on the outside of the enclosure, not enclosed by the enclosure. The Specification does not explain how the absorber is enclosed by the cage. It’s not clear to Examiner how the cage is meant to enclose the absorber. Claims 3-4 are rejected based on their dependence to claim 2.
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 1, 6-8, 12, 14, 16, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khan (US 2020/0329593 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Khan teaches an apparatus comprising:
a layer of a printed circuit board (circuit board 12);
a trace routed along the layer and configured to transmit a signal (electrical trace 14); and
an absorber (EMI absorbing material 27) positioned over the trace (14; see Fig. 2C), wherein the absorber (27) is formed of material that absorbs electromagnetic emissions from the trace (from paragraph 0033: “The absorbing materials may include, for example, dielectric absorbing materials, magnetic absorbing materials, etc. Exemplary absorbing materials include, for example, Carbon Black, Copper Oxide, Ferrites, NiFe composites, etc.”), the absorber (27) comprises a plurality of openings (holes 26), and an opening of the plurality of openings (26) overlaps with the trace (14; see Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 6, Khan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Khan
further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of openings (26) is arranged in multiple rows and columns (see Fig. 2C) at least partially spanning a base of the absorber (27).
Regarding claim 7, Khan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Khan further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the opening of the plurality of openings (26) is circular, hexagonal, or rectangular (see Fig. 2C showing the openings to be circular).
Regarding claim 21, Khan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Khan further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the trace extends along an axis (from paragraph 0031: “FIG. 1 is 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 (26) of the absorber (27) comprises a row of openings offset from one another along the axis (see Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 22, Khan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Khan further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the trace (14) extends along a first axis (the x-axis), and the plurality of openings (26) of the absorber (27) comprises a row of openings offset from one another along a second axis (y-axis) that is transverse to the first axis (see Fig. 2C showing the openings arranged in rows along both the x-axis and the y-axis).
Regarding claim 8, Khan teaches an apparatus comprising:
a printed circuit board (12) having a trace that is configured to transmit a signal (14); and
a perforated sheet (top lid 24) positioned over the trace (14; see Fig. 2A), wherein the perforated sheet (24) includes a hole (26) that exposes the trace (14) through the perforated sheet (24).
Regarding claim 12, Khan teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above. Khan
further teaches the apparatus of claim 8, further comprising an enclosure (corners 21 and sides 22 and 29), wherein the trace (14) is positioned in the enclosure (21, 22, and 29; see Fig. 2A), and the perforated sheet (24) is coupled to the enclosure (21, 22 and 29).
Regarding claim 14, Khan teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above. Khan further teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the perforated sheet (24) comprises an additional hole offset from the trace (see Fig. 2A showing multiple hoes offset from the trace).
Regarding claim 16, Khan teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above. Khan further teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the perforated sheet (24) is made of a metal, a resin, a nitrile, a polymer, or any combination thereof (top lid 24 is a part of metallic shield 20).
Claims 1, 5, 8, 23-24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hauff et al. (US 11,452,202 B2), hereinafter Hauff.
Regarding claim 1, Hauff teaches an apparatus comprising:
a layer of a printed circuit board (first epoxy-based layer 120a);
a trace routed along the layer and configured to transmit a signal (traces 110); and
an absorber (second epoxy-based layer 120b) positioned over the trace (110; see Fig. 1), wherein the absorber (120b) is formed of material that absorbs electromagnetic emissions from the trace (from col. 2 lines 59-62: “[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.”), the absorber (120b) comprises a plurality of openings (pass-throughs 115), and an opening of the plurality of openings (115) overlaps with the trace (110; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Hauff teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Hauff
further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the absorber is in contact with the trace (from col. 2 lines 52-53: “A second epoxy-base layer 120b is arranged to sandwich the traces 110.”).
Regarding claim 23, Hauff teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Hauff further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, comprising an additional layer of the printed circuit board (second ground plane layer 130b), wherein the additional layer (130b) and the absorber (120b) are electrically coupled to a common ground (from col. 3 lines 1-5: “As shown in FIG. 1, a second ground plane layer 130b and, specifically, a first surface 131b of the second ground plane layer 130b, is arranged to contact the second epoxy-based layer 120b and, specifically, the second surface 112b of the second epoxy-based layer 120b.”).
Regarding claim 8, Hauff teaches an apparatus comprising:
a printed circuit board (PWB 100) having a trace that is configured to transmit a signal (110); and
a perforated sheet (120b) positioned over the trace (110; see Fig. 1), wherein the perforated sheet (120b) includes a hole (115) that exposes the trace (110) through the perforated sheet (120b).
Regarding claim 24, Hauff teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above.
Hauff further teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the perforated sheet (120b) is positioned directly on the trace (110; from col. 2 lines 52-53: “A second epoxy-base layer 120b is arranged to sandwich the traces 110.”).
Regarding claim 27, Hauff teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above.
Hauff further teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the printed circuit board (100) includes a ground layer (130b), and the perforated sheet (120b) and the ground layer (130b) are grounded to one another (from col. 3 lines 1-5: “As shown in FIG. 1, a second ground plane layer 130b and, specifically, a first surface 131b of the second ground plane layer 130b, is arranged to contact the second epoxy-based layer 120b and, specifically, the second surface 112b of the second epoxy-based layer 120b.”).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Badihi et al. (US 11,191,197 B2), hereinafter Badihi.
Regarding claim 2, Khan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Khan further teaches a cage (metallic shield 20) enclosing the trace (14). Khan however lacks the specific teaching that the cage also encloses the absorber, as the absorber is disposed on an outer surface of a lid of the cage (see paragraph 0109).
Badihi teaches a PCB cage (housing 10) with interior bottom and side surfaces of its lid (14i; see Fig. 2) coated in electromagnetic absorbing material (layer 20).
Khan and Badihi 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 modify the apparatus taught by Khan, by simply placing the EMI absorbing material on the interior surface of metallic shield 20 (interior surface of corners 21, lid 24, and sides 22 and 29), so it would be enclosed by the metallic shield. With the EMI absorbing material disposed on the interior of metallic shield 20, it would be better positioned to absorb electromagnetic emissions radiated from the trace.
Regarding claim 3, Khan in view of Badihi teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Khan in view of Badihi further teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the absorber (Khan: 27; Badihi: 20) is connected to the cage (Khan: 20; Badihi: 10).
Regarding claim 4, Khan in view of Badihi teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Khan in view of Badihi further teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the absorber (Khan: 27) comprises a flange (modified Khan: the portion of EMI absorbing material disposed on the inner surface of corners 21 and sides 22 and 29) that extends over and engages with a portion of the cage (Khan: 20) to connect the absorber (Khan: 27) to the cage (Khan: 20).
As explained above, the modified apparatus of Khan in view of Badihi has the EMI absorbing material disposed on the interior surfaces of corners 21, lid 24, and sides 22 and 29. The portion of the EMI material attached to corners 21 and sides 22 and 29 can be considered a flange that engages with metallic shield 20.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Ortiz et al. (US 2001/0033478 A1), hereinafter Ortiz.
Khan teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as stated above. Khan lacks the teaching that the enclosure comprises a chassis and a chassis mount extending from the chassis, and the perforated sheet is engaged with the chassis mount to couple to the enclosure. Khan teaches that the perforated sheet and the enclosure are an integral structure.
Ortiz teaches an enclosure (connection assembly 86) comprising a chassis mount (tabs 88) extending from a chassis (base 82) and a perforated sheet (top portion 84) engaged with the chassis mount (88) to couple to the enclosure (86).
Ortiz 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 apparatus of Khan by making top lid 24 as a separate piece from the corners 21 and sides 22 and 29 and attaching it to the corners and sides via a chassis mount, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 1. Doing so would allow the top lid to be removed without needing to remove the corners and sides.
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 Lloyd et al. (US 6,878,872 B2), hereinafter Lloyd.
Khan teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Khan lacks the specific teaching that the additional hole provides access to an interface of the printed circuit board.
Lloyd teaches a perforated sheet (cage 100) enclosing a printed circuit board (circuit board 34) with additional holes (openings 26) providing access to an interface of the printed circuit board (from col. 3 line 65 – col. 4 line 5: “[A]n interior electronic module space 24, which is accessible through an opening 26 of the cage through which an electronic module can pass in the course of installing the module into a connector (not shown) that is enclosed within the shielding cage 100. The connector is typically mounted to the circuit board in the area 125, and mates with the circuit board in a manner to provide a connection to signal traces 126 thereon.”).
Lloyd 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 hole that provides access to an interface of the printed circuit board. Doing so would provide access to components mounted on the circuit board without needing to remove the perforated sheet.
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 teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above. Khan lacks the 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 (Khan: 24) also positioned over the additional trace and exposing the additional trace through one of the holes (Khan: 26) 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).
Conclusion
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