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 on 7/10/2026 has been entered.
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 1-5, 7, 8, 51, 52 and 54-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109608676 to Lin in view of USPAP 2011/0236710 to Lee, USPAP 2010/0209690 to Sang, USPAP 2017/0253750 to Okada, USPAP 2011/0086206 to Scheffer, and/or USPAP 2002/0166682 to Watchko.
Claim 1, Lin discloses an EMI shield comprising: a substrate; an EMI shielding coating disposed on the substrate and comprising: a metal-based conductive additive; a binder; and a carbon-based additive comprising one or more materials selected from the group consisting of graphene and reduced graphene oxide, wherein: the carbon-based additive forms a scaffolding that contains and connects the metal-based conductive additive, and the EMI shielding coating includes greater than 50% w/w metal-based conductive additive (see entire translation document including the summary of the invention section).
Regarding the carbon-based additive forming a scaffolding that contains and connects the metal-based conductive additive, Lin specifically discloses that the conductive material forms a conductive network wherein the graphene and copper contact each other to form a conductive path (see summary of the invention section of Lin and [0004] of the current specification). Regarding the EMI shielding coating including greater than 50% w/w metal-based conductive additive, Lin discloses that the graphene slurry to copper powder ratio may be 1:1.3 (summary of the invention section). Plus, Sang discloses that it is known in the EMI shield art to include a metal-based additive in amount of greater than 50% w/w (see entire document including [0010]-[0014], [0062] and [0074]-[0077]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include any suitable amount of metal-based additive, such as claimed, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the additive amount on the basis of its suitability and desired final product characteristics.
Lin does not appear to mention the specific amount of carbon-based additive but Lee discloses that it is known in the EMI coating art to include carbon-based additive in an amount of 0.01 to about 5 wt% (see entire document including [0026]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the carbon-based additive of Lin within the claimed amount to provide the coating with the benefits of a carbon-based additive.
Claim 2, the metal-based conductive additive is a metallic nanomaterial comprising copper, silver, nickel, zinc, aluminum, tin, or gold (summary of the invention section).
Claims 3 and 60, Lin does not appear to mention the metallic nanomaterial comprising a first metal forming a metallic core and a second metal forming a coating around the metallic core but Okada discloses that it is known in the EMI art to use silver coated copper particles to provide conductivity (see entire document including ([0002] and [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the metal-based conductive additive of Lin from any suitable material, such as claimed, to provide excellent conductivity and/or because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 4, the first metal comprises aluminum, nickel, copper, or iron, and the second metal comprises silver ([0002] and [0041] of Okada).
Claim 5, the metallic nanomaterial comprises a morphology comprising nanoparticles, nanorods, nanowires, nanoflowers, nanoflakes, nanofibers, nanoplatelets, nanoribbons, nanocubes, bipyramids, nanodiscs, nanoplates, nanodendrites, nanoleaves, nanospheres, quantum spheres, quantum dots, nanosprings, nanosheets, porous nanosheets, nanomesh, or any combination thereof (summary of the invention section).
Claim 7, Lin does not appear to mention the specific amount of binder but Lee discloses that it is known in the EMI coating art to include binder in an amount of 20 to about 95 wt% (see entire document including [0026]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the binder of Lin within the claimed amount to provide the coating with the benefits of a binder.
Claim 8, the binder comprises one or more materials selected from the group consisting of an alkyd, an acrylic, a vinyl-acrylic, vinyl acetate/ethylene (VAE), polyurethane, polyethylene, polyester, styrene, styrene acrylic, melamine, a silane, and a siloxane, or any combination thereof (summary of the invention section).
Claim 51, Lin does not appear to mention the specific surface area of the at least one of the graphene and the reduced graphene oxide but Scheffer discloses that it is known in the art to use graphene or reduced graphene oxide having a specific surface area of greater than 1,000 m2/g (see entire document including ([0001], [0004], [0005], [0024]-[0027], [0036] and [0092]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include to use graphene or reduced graphene oxide having the claimed specific surface area to provide excellent conductivity.
Claim 52, Lin does not appear to mention the specific graphene or reduced graphene oxide conductivity but considering that the applied prior art teaches a substantially identical material in terms of composition and surface area, the claimed conductivity appears to be inherent. Plus, Scheffer discloses that it is known in the art to construct an EMI composition with the claimed conductivity (see entire document including ([0053] and [0092]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use graphene or reduced graphene oxide having the claimed conductivity based on the intended application and the desired product conductivity.
Claim 54, Lin specifically discloses that the conductive material forms a conductive network wherein the graphene and copper contact each other to form a conductive path (see summary of the invention section of Lin and [0004] of the current specification).
Claims 55 and 58, Lee discloses that an EMI shielding coating may have a thickness of 50 to 100 micrometers [0031]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the coating with any desired thickness, such as claimed, based on the intended application and the desired characteristics.
Claim 56, the carbon-based additive consists essentially of graphene (summary of the invention section).
Claim 57, Lin does not appear to mention the carbon-based additive being reduced graphene oxide but Scheffer discloses that it is known in the art to use graphene or reduced graphene oxide (see entire document including ([0001], [0004], [0005], [0024]-[0027], [0036] and [0092]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use graphene or reduced graphene oxide because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 59, Lin does not appear to mention the particle size of the carbon-based additive but Lee discloses that it is known in the EMI coating art to include carbon-based additive with an average particle size of 2 µm (Example 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the carbon-based additive of Lin within the claimed size to provide the coating with the benefits of a carbon-based additive.
Claims 61 and 62, Lin does not appear to mention the substrate comprising an interior curved surface of an electrical enclosure but Watchko discloses that it is known in the art to apply an EMI shielding layer to the interior curved surface of an electrical enclosure to provide EMI shielding to the electrical device (see entire document including [0002], [0011], [0012], [0023], [0025] and the Figures). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the EMI shield coating to any suitable substrate, such as claimed, based on the intended use the product design desiring/requiring EMI shielding.
Claim 63, the EMI shield of Lin is flexible (abstract and summary of the invention sections).
Claim 64, Lin does not appear to mention the Emi shield further comprising a scratch and/or impact resistant coating but Scheffer discloses that it is known in the art to apply a varnish overcoat to an EMI shield coating ([0090] and [0104]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply a varnish (scratch and impact resistant coating) overcoat to the EMI shield of Lin to provide protection to the device exterior.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/10/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights