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 § 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 1-20 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.
The scope of claims 1 and 20 is indefinite because they claim that the walls, the floor, and the ceiling each comprises a “single” layer of electrically conductive panels. However, the claim further claims internal and external mu-metal panels mounted to the electrically conductive panels. Therefore, since mu-metal panels are also capable of conducting electricity, how are the walls, floor, and ceiling made of a single layer of electrically conductive panels? They appear to be made of multiple layers of electrically conductive panels. The claim will be examined as best understood until further clarification is provided. The examiner will interpret the claims as claimed in that the walls could have more than one layer of electrically conductive panels, which include at least the electrically conductive panels and the mu-metal panels.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadler (US Patent No. 11,540,433) in view of Simola et al. (US 2008/0050172) and McCalley (6415557).
For claim 1, Sadler discloses a modular magnetically shielded room (fig. 1) to shield a magnetic field detection system from electromagnetic interference, the modular magnetically shielded room comprising: walls, a floor, and a ceiling that enclose an interior volume; the walls, the floor, and the ceiling each comprising a single layer of electrically conductive panels (fig. 3, 300 is one single panel that forms a single panel layer with the other panels of the wall, ceiling, or floor), wherein mechanically coupling the electrically conductive panels to each other electrically couples the electrically conductive panels to each other; electrically conductive brackets (104, 110) to mechanically couple to the electrically conductive panels at interfaces between the walls, the floor, and the ceiling, wherein mechanically coupling the electrically conductive brackets to the electrically conductive panels electrically couples the electrically conductive brackets to the electrically conductive panels.
Sadler does not disclose that the electrically conductive panels comprise a flange to mechanically couple to adjacent ones of the electrically conductive panels, wherein each flange is substantially perpendicular to a surface of its electrically conductive panel, or internal mu-metal panels mounted to internal surfaces of the electrically conductive panels of the walls, the floor, and the ceiling; and external mu-metal panels mounted to external surfaces of the electrically conductive panels of the walls, the floor, and the ceiling.
In regard to the flange extending perpendicularly to the electrically conductive panels, McCalley teaches that it is known to connect electrically conductive (i.e. metal) panels together using a flange that is perpendicular to the surface of the panel, wherein the flanges are connected together with brackets, (fig. 2, bracket 116, brackets in figs. 5 and 10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use perpendicular flanges and brackets to connect Sadler’s panels, because the perpendicular flanges and brackets will provide a stronger, more secure means of connection to hold the panels together.
Simola et al. discloses the obviousness of attaching internal mu-metal panels (104, 106) to internal surfaces of the electrically conductive panels, and external mu-metal panels (110, 112) to external surfaces of the electrically conductive panels.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to add internal mu-metal panels mounted to internal surfaces of the electrically conductive panels of the walls, the floor, and the ceiling; and external mu-metal panels mounted to external surfaces of the electrically conductive panels of the walls, the floor, and the ceiling as made obvious by Simola et al. to increase the shielding properties of the modular magnetically shielded room from electromagnetic interference.
For claim 2, the combination discloses an inner wood lattice (Sadler fig. 3, 306, col. 6 lines 57-59); and wherein: the inner wood lattice is mounted to the internal surfaces of the electrically conductive panels; and it would be obvious to mechanically couple the internal mu-metal panels (Simola et al. fig. 1, 104, 106) of the combination to the internal wood lattice to mount to the internal surfaces of the electrically conductive panels.
For claim 3, the combination discloses the obviousness of adding an outer wood frame (Sadler fig. 6, 612) and wherein the outer wood frame is mounted to the external surfaces of the electrically conductive panels and it would be obvious to mechanically couple the external mu-metal panels (Simola et al. fig. 1, 110, 112) of the combination to the internal wood lattice to mount to the internal surfaces of the electrically conductive panels.
For claim 4, the combination discloses internal mu-metal brackets (Simola et al. fig. 1, 105 teaches to make brackets of mu-metal, and McCalley teaches brackets as pointed out above); and wherein: the internal mu-metal brackets mechanically couple to the internal mu-metal panels at the interfaces between the walls, the floor, and the ceiling. The internal panels will be placed over the brackets and everything will be coupled together.
For claim 5, the combination discloses external mu-metal brackets (Simola et al. fig. 1, 111); and wherein: the external mu-metal brackets mechanically couple (via 100) to the external mu-metal panels at the interfaces between the walls, the floor, and the ceiling.
For claim 6, the combination discloses internal mu-metal cover strips (Simola et al. fig. 1, 103) and external mu-metal cover strips (Simola et al. fig. 1, 114); and wherein: the internal mu-metal cover strips couple adjacent ones of the internal mu-metal panels; and the external mu-metal cover strips couple adjacent ones of the external mu-metal panels.
For claim 7, the examiner takes official notice that it would be obvious to arrange the internal mu-metal panels in a first layer and a second layer, the first layer comprising a set of the internal mu-metal panels arranged in a vertical orientation and the second layer comprising another set of the internal mu-metal panels arranged in a horizontal orientation; and the first layer is coupled to the second layer.
For claim 8, the combination discloses a door (Sadler fig. 1, 106); and wherein: one of the walls comprises an entry port and the door is mounted to the one of the walls at the entry port.
For claim 9, the combination discloses a door (Sadler fig. 1, 106) and it would be obvious to make the door the same as the modified panels with the door comprising an electrically conductive door panel, an internal door mu-metal panel, and an external door mu-metal panel; when the door is in a closed position: the electrically conductive door panel electrically couples to the electrically conductive panels of the walls; the internal door mu-metal panel contacts the internal mu-metal panels mounted to the internal surfaces of the one of the walls; and the external door mu-metal panel contacts the external mu-metal panels mounted to the external surfaces of the one of the walls to promote uniformity and provide uniform magnetic shielding around the entire room.
For claim 10, the combination discloses that at least one of the electrically conductive panels comprises a conduit port (Sadler fig. 1, 108); and further comprising: conduit that passes into the interior volume through the conduit port; and wherein: the conduit carries at least one of a signaling link, a data link, a power link, or an electrical ground (col. 4 lines 28-35).
For claim 11, the combination discloses that the flanges of the electrically conductive panels comprise screw/bolt ports (McCalley 120); and each of the electrically conductive panels is screwed to adjacent ones of the electrically conductive panels through the screw ports of the flanges to mechanically couple the electrically conductive panels to each other.
For claim 13, the combination discloses that the electrically conductive panels and the electrically conductive brackets comprise aluminum and an electrically conductive surface coating (Simola et al. [0030] and McCalley, col. 3, lines 33-37).
For claims 14-17, the combination discloses the obviousness of coating the electrically conductive surface with a tin coating (Simola et al. [0030]) and it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use an Alodine/chromate or copper coating since these are very well-known coatings in the art to get predictable and expected results like increase durability of the panels.
For claims 18-19, the combination discloses that the internal and external mu-metal panels can comprise an alloy of nickel and iron (Simola et al. [0007]) for higher permeability.
For claim 20, the combination discloses the basic claimed method of manufacturing a modular magnetically shielded room. The steps of the method can obviously be seen in the rejection above with respect to claim 1. The rejection of claim 1 addresses all of the structural limitations of claim 20 and the room is shown assembled in the figures of the drawings of the combination of references.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadler (US Patent No. 11,540,433) in view of Simola et al. (US 2008/0050172) and McCalley (6415557) as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, and further in view of Schlapfer (US Patent No. 6,282,848).
For claim 12, the combination does not disclose support feet, wherein the support feet are mounted to the external surfaces of the electrically conductive panels of the floor.
Schlapfer discloses the obviousness of adding support feet (fig. 4, 64) to the external surfaces of the electrically conductive panels of the floor of magnetically shielded room.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to add support feet to the floor of the magnetically shielded room of the combination as made obvious by Schlapfer to provide vibration dampening support.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the reference to Simola does not disclose or teach the use of a “single layer of electrically conductive panels”. The examiner would like to point out that Simola was not used to teach a single layer of panels. Therefore, this argument is moot. The applicant further argues that Sadler also does not teach a single layer of electrically conductive panels. The examiner again respectfully disagrees. The examiner referred to figure 3 of Sadler to show an electrically conductive panel, which it does, i.e. panel 300. The room is made up of one, or a single layer of panels 300. The fact that panel 300 has multiple layers that make up the single panel is irrelevant. The panel 300 is still a single panel as disclosed by Sadler. The panel 300 is a single, integral panel, and when assembled into the room, the multiple panels form a single layer wall, a single layer ceiling, and a single layer floor because Sadler does not disclose that the walls, ceiling, or floor are made up of multiple layers of electrically conductive panels 300.
In regard to the applicant’s argument that neither Sadler or Simola teaches an electrically conductive flange that extends perpendicular to a surface of its panel, the argument is moot. As pointed out in the above rejection, McCalley teaches that the use of a perpendicular flange on a modular metal room is well known in the art.
For the above reasons, the claims are not found to be in allowable condition and stand rejected as set forth in the office action.
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 Brian E Glessner whose telephone number is (571)272-6754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 to 4:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights