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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/08/2024 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 7, 12, 16-17 and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites a limitation “A bond-degradation device for …, the bond-degradation device comprising:” in preamble lines 1-2. Examiner suggests amending the limitation to recite “A bond-degradation testing device for …, the bond-degradation testing device comprising:” to restore antecedent and clarity.
Claim(s) 1 and 16 recite a term “EMI” in line 1. Examiner suggests amending the term to recite “Electromagnetic interference (EMI)” to restore clarity.
Claim(s) 1 and 16 recite a phrase “backshell of the first complementary mating connector” in the last and last but two paragraph, respectively. Examiner suggests amending the phrase to recite “the conductive backshell of the first complementary mating connector” to restore antecedent clarity.
Claim 7 recites a term “a resistance” in line 2. Examiner suggests amending the term to recite “the resistance” to restore antecedent clarity.
Claim 12 recites a phrase “mating connectors attaches” in line 2. Examiner suggests amending the phrase to recite “mating connectors are attached” to restore clarity.
Claim(s) 17 and 19 recite a phrase “testing EMI susceptibility or emission suppression” in line 1. Examiner suggests amending the phrase to recite “the testing of EMI susceptibility or emission suppression” to restore antecedent clarity.
Claim 16 should amend below punctuations:
replace the punctuation “; and” at the end of last but three paragraph with “;” and
replace the punctuation “;” at the end of last but two paragraph with “; and” to restore clarity.
Claim 20 recites a phrase “wherein conductively or radiatively coupling” in line 1. Examiner suggests amending the phrase to recite “wherein the conductively or radiatively coupling” to restore antecedent clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The rationale for this finding is explained below:
Claim 1 recites element(s) "conductive wires within the shielded cable" and “conductive wires between the first and second complementary mating connectors” in paragraphs 2 and 5. But, antecedent basis for term “wires” in a limitation “a conductive shield that surrounds the plurality of wires” in paragraph 6 remains unclear regarding which of the said element(s) the term refers to.
Claim 1 recites a limitation "loop resistance of the shielding" in paragraph 2. But, antecedent basis for the term “the shielding” in the limitation remains unclear as to which of the previously recited shielding elements, such as 1) “shields of the normally-connected first and second shielded connectors”, 2) “the shielding of conductive wires” and 3) “the shielding of the shielded cable assembly” it refers to. Therefore, it remains unclear what applicant consider as the loop resistance in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, a phrase "wherein the resistive annulus has a resistivity that is substantially," renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "substantially"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable.
Claim 8 recites a term "the bond-degradation testing device" before introduction. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term in the claim. If claim 8 is meant to be a dependent claim, then it is missing reference to the base claim on which it is supposed to depend.
Claim 11 recites a term "the conductive annulus" before introduction. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term in the claim. If it is meant to refer to “the resistive annulus”, then it should recite the same nomenclature.
Claim 16 recites a limitation "loop resistance of the shielding" in last but one paragraph. But, antecedent basis for the term “the shielding” in the limitation remains unclear as to which of the previously recited shielding elements, such as 1) “shields of the normally-connected first and second shielded connectors”, 2) “the shielding of conductive wires” and 3) “a shielded cable assembly”, 4) “first and second shielded connectors” and 5) “a conductive shield that surrounds the plurality of wires” it refers to. Therefore, it remains unclear what applicant consider as the loop resistance in the claim.
Claim 16 recites elements "conductive wires” in last but one and last but three paragraphs. It is unclear as to new or prior element(s) are referred here.
Claim 16 recites element(s) "a bond-degradation testing device” at multiple instances in paragraphs 3-4. It is unclear if new or prior instances are referred here.
Dependent Claim(s) 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-15 and 17-20 not specifically addressed share the same 112(b) rejection as the rejected base Claim(s). Appropriate correction is required.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Valiente et al. (US 20210076546) teaches detecting electromagnetic interference (EMI) shielding for a signal trace.
CHOI et al. (US 20150129874) teaches testing EMI shielding in semiconductor packages using a loop circuit.
Hailey et al. (US 20080084218) teaches a method where electromagnetic interference constraints is tested through a test adapter that interfaces with an external cable connecting the information handling system and peripheral.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKM ZAKARIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0664. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-5 PM (PST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Judy Nguyen can be reached on (571) 272-2258. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AKM ZAKARIA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights