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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 10-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 2, 4 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortensen et al. (US 7,667,984; hereinafter Mortensen) and Hasegawa et al. (US 6,185,065; hereafter Hasegawa).
Regarding claim 1, Mortensen (fig. 3) discloses an apparatus comprising: an extension arm (103), an EMC scattering shield (104), and a rotation hinge (see col 4, lines 8-10); the extension arm (103) configured to position the EMC scattering shield (104) at a desired distance away from an external component (101); wherein the extension arm (103) is attached to and extends outward from an electronic industry alliance cabinet (see col. 3, lines 1-5); and the rotation hinge connecting the extension arm (103) and the EMC scattering shield (104), wherein the rotation hinge is configured to rotate the EMC scattering shield (104) away from the external component (101).
Mortensen does not expressly disclose the electronic industry alliance cabinet as a rack on an equipment rack. However, it is well known in the art EIA cabinets can include rack systems to mount multiple electronic components.
Furthermore, Hasegawa (fig. 11) teaches an apparatus comprising an EMC scattering shield (32) attached to and extending from an equipment rack (30).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mortensen’s apparatus to include the equipment rack of Hasegawa, since the use of rails in equipment cabinets is known for mounting arrangements for supporting and securing a variety of components.
Regarding claim 2, Mortensen discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the external component (1) is selected from a drawer, a server subcomponent, a cable management spine, and a server rack (see col. 3, lines 5-13 and col. 1, lines 31-32).
Regarding claim 4, Mortensen (fig. 1) discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a length of the extension arm (103) allows for cable egress (102) to the external component (101).
Regarding claim 10, Mortensen (fig. 1) discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the EMC scattering shield (104) is solid (see fig. 4, and par. [0020] line 17).
Regarding claim 11, Mortensen (fig. 1) discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the EMC scattering shield (104) includes perforations (see fig. 4).
Claim(s) 12, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortensen and Hasegawa, and further in view of George (US 4,262,365).
Regarding claim 12, Mortensen discloses the apparatus of claim 11.
Mortensen fails to specifically disclose wherein the perforations are angled
downward relative to the external component.
George teaches (figs. 2-3) an apparatus wherein perforations (59a, 59b) are
angled downward relative to an external component (23).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filing date
of the invention to make Mortensen's apparatus wherein the perforations are angled
downward relative to the external component as taught by George, in order to improve
the shielding properties of the EMC scattering shield (see col. 1 lines 34-47).
Regarding claim 14, Mortensen discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Mortensen fails to specifically disclose wherein the EMC scattering shield
includes a plurality of slats.
George teaches (figs. 2-3) an apparatus wherein an EMC scattering shield
includes a plurality of slats.
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make Mortensen's apparatus wherein the EMC scattering shield
includes a plurality of slats as taught by George, in order to improve the shielding
properties of the EMC scattering shield (see col. 1 lines 34-47).
Regarding claim 15, Mortensen discloses the apparatus of claim 14.
The modified Mortensen teaches the slats are angled downward relative to the
external component (see George figs. 2-3).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Mortensen and Hasegawa, and further in view of Nicol et al. (US 8,809,697; hereinafter Nicol).
Regarding claim 13, Mortensen discloses the apparatus of claim 11.
Mortensen fails to specifically disclose the perforations are smaller than a quarter
wavelength of a highest frequency of concern for EMC protection.
Nicol teaches an apparatus wherein perforations are smaller than a quarter wavelength of a highest frequency of concern for EMC protection (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filing date
of the invention to apply the teachings of Nicol and make Mortensen's apparatus
wherein the perforations are smaller than a quarter wavelength of a highest frequency
of concern for EMC protection, in order to ensure shielding integrity in the EMC
scattering shield.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at 571-272-4483. 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.
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights