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 filed on September 15, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot; whereas new rejections have been made to read on the amended claim language.
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 “extension arm is telescopic” (claim 3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 reads “the group consisting of a drawer, a server subcomponent, a cable management spine, and sever rack”. The specification, Paragraph [0049], presents “a drawer, a server subcomponent, a cable management spine, and sever rack’ as examples rather than a closed group, and therefore does not clearly support the exclusion of unlisted alternatives required by “consisting of”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(1)(2) as being anticipated by Mortensen et al. (US 7,667,794; hereinafter Mortensen).
Regarding claim 1, Mortensen 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) configure to position the EMC scattering shield (104) at a desired distance away from an external component (101), wherein the extension arm (103) extends outward from an electronic industry alliance rail on an equipment rack (see col. 3, lines 12-14); and the rotation hinge is configured to rotate the EMC scattering shield (104) away from the external component (101)(see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Mortensen (fig. 3) discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the external component (101) is selected from the group consisting of a drawer, a server subcomponent, a cable management spine, server rack, and EIA rails (see col. 3, lines5-19).
Regarding claim 10, Mortensen discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the EMC scattering shield (104) is solid (fig. 4, see par. [0020], line 17).
Regarding claim 11, Mortensen discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the EMC scattering shield (104) includes perforations (see fig. 4)
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortensen in view of Krajecki (US 6,944,011).
Regarding claim 3, Mortensen discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Mortensen fails to disclose the extension arm is telescopic.
Krajecki teaches a telescopic extension structure.
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make apply the teachings of Krajecki and make Mortensen’s apparatus with the extension arm being telescopic, in order to adjust the position of the EMC scattering shield.
Regarding claim 4, Mortensen discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein a length of the extension arm (103) allows for cable egress (102) to the external component (101)(see fig. 1).
Claim(s) 12, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortensen 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 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.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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