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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species C in the reply filed on 2025-12-17 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8-12, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Evangelista et al. (US 5363690).
Regarding claim 1 Evangelista discloses:
An electromagnetic shielding member for a gas detector, the electromagnetic shielding member comprising:
a hollow body (e.g. enclosed space formed by/inside of 24, 30, 34, 46 FIG.4) adapted to at least partially enclose a sensor (e.g. enclosing 32 shown FIG.4), the hollow body comprising:
a connecting portion (e.g. 30 FIG.4, exposed wires col 3 line 47) adapted to electrically connect the hollow body to an enclosure (e.g. 12 FIG.4) of the gas detector (e.g. via 30, 43 FIG.4); and
at least one airflow channel (e.g. gaps between 32 and 24, 30, 34, 46 shown FIG.4) defined in the hollow body (e.g. shown FIG.4), the at least one airflow channel in fluid communication with the sensor (e.g. indicated FIG.4), wherein the at least one airflow channel is adapted to block an electromagnetic signal (e.g. “radio frequency” col 2 line 45) based on a set of geometrical parameters (e.g. shape of 30 and 24 shown FIG.4) associated with the at least one airflow channel (e.g. via 24, 30 and gap around 32 FIG.4, col 3 line 50), wherein the set of geometrical parameters (e.g. geometry shown with respect to 24 and 30 FIG.4) is selected based on one or more parameters of the electromagnetic signal to be blocked (e.g. “rejection of radio frequency” col 2 line 45, “provide electromagnetic isolation” col 3 line 51).
Regarding claim 2 Evangelista discloses:
the set of geometrical parameters comprises at least one of a shape (e.g. shown FIG.4), an internal diameter (e.g. shown FIG.4), an orientation, and a length of the at least one airflow channel (e.g. shown FIG.4).
Regarding claim 4 Evangelista discloses:
the at least one airflow channel is oriented to prevent at least one of ambient particulate matter and water particles from directly contacting the sensor (e.g. described col 3 line 54).
Regarding claim 5 Evangelista discloses:
the at least one airflow channel is oriented at an inclination greater than 45 degrees relative to a longitudinal axis (X-X′) of the hollow body (e.g. 90 degrees as shown FIG.4).
Regarding claim 6 Evangelista discloses:
the connecting portion is defined on an outer surface of a side wall of the hollow body (e.g. described col 3 line 47).
Regarding claim 8 Evangelista discloses:
the hollow body comprises at least one baffle portion (e.g. 46 FIG.4) removably fastened to the side wall and extending downward in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis (X-X′) of the hollow body (e.g. shown FIG.4).
Regarding claim 9 Evangelista discloses:
the at least one baffle portion is spaced apart from the hollow body (e.g. spaced from 34 FIG.4) to permit entry of ambient air into the at least one airflow channel (e.g. gaps around 32 shown FIG.4).
Regarding claim 10 Evangelista discloses:
the at least one baffle portion and the at least one airflow channel are aligned to permit entry of ambient air into the at least one airflow channel (e.g. shown FIG.4. described col 3 line 58).
Regarding claim 11 Evangelista discloses:
A gas detector comprising:
an enclosure (e.g. 24 FIG.4) adapted to enclose at least a portion of a sensor (e.g. 32 FIG.4) and control circuitry (e.g. 42 FIG.4) electrically connected to the sensor (e.g. via 30, 43 FIG.4); and
an electromagnetic shielding member (e.g. below 43 FIG.4) adapted to be removably fastened to the enclosure, the electromagnetic shielding member comprising:
a hollow body (e.g. enclosed space formed by/inside of 24, 30, 34, 46 FIG.4) adapted to enclose the sensor, the hollow body comprising:
a connecting portion (e.g. 30 FIG.4, exposed wires col 3 line 47) adapted to electrically connect the hollow body to the enclosure (e.g. via 43 FIG.4); and
at least one airflow channel (e.g. gaps between 32 and 24, 30, 34, 46 shown FIG.4) defined in the hollow body (e.g. shown FIG.4), the at least one airflow channel in fluid communication with the sensor (e.g. indicated FIG.4), wherein the at least one airflow channel is adapted to block an electromagnetic signal (e.g. “radio frequency” col 2 line 45) based on a set of geometrical parameters (e.g. shape of 30 and 24 shown FIG.4) associated with the at least one airflow channel (e.g. via 24, 30 and gap around 32 FIG.4, col 3 line 50), wherein the set of geometrical parameters (e.g. geometry shown with respect to 24 and 30 FIG.4) is selected based on one or more parameters of the electromagnetic signal to be blocked (e.g. “rejection of radio frequency” col 2 line 45, “provide electromagnetic isolation” col 3 line 51).
Regarding claim 12 Evangelista discloses:
the set of geometrical parameters comprises at least one of a shape (e.g. shown FIG.4), an internal diameter (e.g. shown FIG.4), an orientation (e.g. shown FIG.4), and a length of the at least one airflow channel (e.g. shown FIG.4).
Regarding claim 14 Evangelista discloses:
the at least one airflow channel is oriented to prevent at least one of ambient particulate matter and water particles from directly contacting the sensor (e.g. described col 3 line 54).
Regarding claim 15 Evangelista discloses:
the at least one airflow channel is oriented at an inclination greater than 45 degrees relative to a longitudinal axis (X-X′) of the hollow body (e.g. 90 degrees as shown FIG.4).
Regarding claim 16 Evangelista discloses:
the connecting portion is defined on an outer surface of a side wall of the hollow body (e.g. described col 3 line 47).
Regarding claim 17 Evangelista discloses:
the hollow body comprises at least one baffle portion (e.g. 46 FIG.4) removably fastened to the side wall and extending downward in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis (X-X') of the hollow body.
Regarding claim 18 Evangelista discloses:
the at least one baffle portion is adapted to removably fasten a secondary cover element (e.g. against 29 FIG.4) to the side wall (e.g. shown FIG.4).
Regarding claim 19 Evangelista discloses:
the at least one baffle portion is spaced apart from the hollow body to permit entry of ambient air into the at least one airflow channel (e.g. via gaps between 46 and 32 shown FIG.4).
Regarding claim 20 Evangelista discloses:
the at least one baffle portion and the at least one airflow channel are aligned to permit entry of ambient air into the at least one airflow channel (e.g. shown FIG.4. described col 3 line 58).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evangelista et al. (US 5363690) in view of Zhang (US 2011/0179769).
Regarding claim 3 Evangelista discloses:
The electromagnetic shielding member of claim 1,
Evangelista does not explicitly disclose:
the internal diameter of the at least one airflow channel is less than 5 mm
Zhang teaches:
the internal diameter of the at least one airflow channel is less than 5 mm (e.g. described paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Zhang, as pointed out above, in Evangelista, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: "compensates for the increased resistance to flow caused by the longer flow path. As a result, a more equivalent mass flow of exhaust may be admitted through each of the inlets" (paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 13 Evangelista discloses:
The electromagnetic shielding member of claim 11,
Evangelista does not explicitly disclose:
the internal diameter of the at least one airflow channel is less than 5 mm
Zhang teaches:
the internal diameter of the at least one airflow channel is less than 5 mm (e.g. described paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Zhang, as pointed out above, in Evangelista, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have would have recognized the teaching, suggestion, and motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (as pointed out above) to arrive at the claimed invention, and would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification would have allowed for: "compensates for the increased resistance to flow caused by the longer flow path. As a result, a more equivalent mass flow of exhaust may be admitted through each of the inlets" (paragraph [0029]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026-08-18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection above points out where the prior art of record discloses the limitations added in amendment.
Regarding arguments with respect to cap 34. Neither the prior office action nor the present office action identifies 34 as a connecting portion and 30 is clearly shown lining the hollow body of Evangelista. As noted in the prior action, and in the office action above, 30 of FIG.4, and exposed wires of col 3 line 47 disclose the argued elements.
30 is clearly shown in FIG.4 forming the upper portion of the hollow body. FIG.4 clearly shows that the air channel above 32 is bounded by 30 above and 24 to the sides. FIG.4 serves to establish for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the geometry that was selected by Evangelista in order to block radio frequency interference.
Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand then when read in light of the specification without importing limitations from the specification into the claims (MPEP 2111) and it must be noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that voids do not serve to block or attenuate electromagnetic radiation, it is the lining of the voids that allow for attenuation/blocking of electromagnetic radiation. As such, applicants’ arguments that that gaps in Evangelista do not “provide electromagnetic shielding” apply to applicants own disclosed device (i.e. reading in light of the specification), it is not the claimed channel(s)(i.e. the empty space) in and of itself that is adapted to block an electromagnetic signal, it’s the material that lines the empty space that actually performs the function. Likewise it is 30 and 24 that form and line the gaps of Evangelista that perform the actual attenuation/blocking of EM radiation. The limitation “channel” is interpreted to include the lining of such channels, not exclusively the empty space of the channels as applicant appears to argue.
The remaining arguments are addressed in the response or rejection above and so will not be repeated here.
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 THERON S MILLISER whose telephone number is (571)270-1800. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
Limited examiner interviews are available.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani N. Hayman can be reached at (571) 270-5528. 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.
/THERON S MILLISER/
Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/ANTHONY M HAUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights