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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duralek et al (US 20230101552; “Duralek” hereinafter), in view of Arnold (US 20050045358; “Arnold” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Duralek teaches: an electronic control device comprising:
a substrate (6, fig. 7);
a housing (2, 3) that houses the substrate (fig. 7); and
a shielding material (9 and 10) that is filled between the substrate and the housing (figs. 5 and 7), includes a base material (material that imparts elastomeric properties, ¶[0014], [0036 ) and a conductive filler (¶[0014], [0036]), and electrically connects the substrate and the housing (fig. 7, ¶[0036]-[0039]), wherein
the shielding material comprises a low-impedance region (where compressed regions 91 and 101 are disposed, fig. 7, ¶[0039]) which has an impedance lower than that of another region of the shielding material (uncompressed regions 71, ¶[0036]), and a density of the conductive filler in the low-impedance region is higher than that of the conductive filler in the another region of the shielding material (conductive filler is compressed in regions 91 and 101 relative to uncompressed region 71, and therefore, volumetric density in regions 91 and 101 is higher relative to region 71, which results in a low impedance region due to the increased density and conductivity in regions 91 and 101, figs. 4-5, 7, ¶[0036], ¶[0039]-[0040]).
Duralek does not explicitly disclose:
the substrate having an electronic component mounted thereon.
However, Arnold teaches:
a substrate (10, fig. 2) having an electronic component (12, fig. 2) mounted thereon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Arnold’s electrical component mounted in Duralek’s substrate, since claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (electronic components mounted on substrates) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Arnold (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, Duralek in view of Arnold teaches the limitations of claim 2, and Duralek further discloses: wherein
the housing has a protrusion (8, figs. 3-5, 7) that presses the shielding material (see at least ¶[0037]-[0039]), and
the low impedance region is a high compression region in which the shielding material is pressed by the protrusion (“the total length of the gasket that is substantially compressed when the housing is closed is reduced”, ¶[0040]).
Regarding claim 4, Duralek in view of Arnold teaches the limitations of claim 2, and Duralek further discloses: comprising
contact portions (7, 71, figs. 2-5) that are disposed at both ends of the housing and electrically connect the substrate and the housing (¶[0003], ¶[0036]), wherein
the protrusion (8) is formed between the two contact portions (figs. 3-5, ¶[0035]).
Regarding claim 7, Duralek in view of Arnold teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Duralek further discloses: wherein
a connector is mounted on the substrate (see annotated fig. 1 below), and
PNG
media_image1.png
388
777
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the shielding material is provided between the substrate and the connector (as disclosed upon examination of figs. 1-2 and 7).
Regarding claim 8, Duralek in view of Arnold teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Duralek further discloses: wherein
an opening portion (where connectors are disposed, see annotated fig. 1 above, and annotated fig. 1 below) is formed in the housing, and
PNG
media_image2.png
375
553
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the shielding material is provided at least at a position facing the opening formed in the housing (as disclosed upon examination of figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 9, Duralek in view of Arnold teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Duralek further discloses: wherein
the housing includes a first housing (2) and a second housing (3) overlapping the first housing (figs. 1 and 7),
the shielding material is filled also in a portion where the first housing and the second housing overlap (clearly disclosed upon examination of figures 1-8), and electrically connects the first housing and the second housing (fig. 7, ¶[0014], ¶[0036]), and
at least one of the first housing and the second housing is provided with a protrusion (8, figs. 3-5, and 7) that presses the shielding material (see at least ¶[0037]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 10, Duralek in view of Arnold teaches the limitations of claim 9, and Duralek further discloses: wherein
a part of the substrate is sandwiched between the first housing and the second housing (fig. 7),
the shielding material is filled between the substrate and the first housing and between the substrate and the second housing (fig. 7),
the first housing has a first protrusion (see annotated fig. 7 below) that presses the shielding material (fig. 7, ¶[0037]-[0039]), and
PNG
media_image3.png
335
610
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the second housing has a second protrusion (see annotated fig. 7 below) that presses the shielding material (fig. 7, ¶[0037]-[0039]).
Claims 3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duralek et al (US 20230101552; “Duralek” hereinafter), in view of Arnold (US 20050045358; “Arnold” hereinafter) as applied to claims 1-2, and further in view of Nozawa et al (US 20180255633; “Nozawa” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 3, Duralek in view of Arnold teaches the limitations of claim 2, and Duralek further discloses: wherein
a plurality of the protrusions is provided in the housing (figs. 2 and 8).
Duralek in view of Arnold does not explicitly disclose:
an interval between two adjacent protrusions in the plurality of protrusions is set to a half or less of a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation to be reduced .
However, Nozawa teaches:
an interval between two adjacent protrusions (18, 26, figs. 8, 11) in the plurality of protrusions is set to a half or less of a wavelength of an electromagnetic field (¶[0002], ¶[0044]-[0045], ¶[0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Duralek’s housing with Nozawa’s teaching, such that an interval between two adjacent protrusions in the plurality of protrusions is set to a half or less of a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation to be reduced, in order to prevent propagation of noise of a frequency corresponding to a wavelength (¶[0002], ¶[0045]). Furthermore, the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (electromagnetic field noise reduction) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Nozawa (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 5, Duralek in view of Arnold teaches the limitations of claim 4, but do not explicitly disclose:
wherein
an interval between the contact portion and the protrusion is set to a half or less of a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation to be reduced.
However, Nozawa teaches:
the positions of contact points (screw holes 24, figs. 3 and 7) are decided in such a manner that the inter-contact-point distance is shorter than the half-wavelength of the wavelength corresponding to such a frequency (¶[0002], ¶[0044]-[0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Duralek’s housing with Nozawa’s teaching, such that an interval between the contact portion and the protrusion is set to a half or less of a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation to be reduced, in order to prevent propagation of noise of a frequency corresponding to a wavelength (¶[0002], ¶[0045]). Furthermore, the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (electromagnetic field noise reduction) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Nozawa (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 6, Duralek in view of Arnold teaches the limitations of claim 4, but do not explicitly disclose:
wherein
the contact portion is a fixing screw that fixes the substrate to the housing.
However, Nozawa teaches:
a contact portion (24 and 25, fig. 7) is a fixing screw (25, fig. 7) that fixes a substrate (10, fig. 7) to a housing (20 and 30, fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Duralek’s housing with Nozawa’s teaching, such that the contact portion is a fixing screw that fixes the substrate to the housing, since the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (fastening means) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Nozawa (MPEP 2143). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration, since the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duralek et al (US 20230101552; “Duralek” hereinafter), in view of Arnold (US 20050045358; “Arnold” hereinafter), as applied to claims 1, 9-10, and further in view of Goyal et al (US 20010052521; “Goyal” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 11, Duralek in view of Arnold teaches the limitations of claim 10, and Duralek further discloses:
wherein
PNG
media_image3.png
335
610
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the substrate interposed between the first protrusion and the second protrusion (see annotated fig. 7 below)
Duralek in view of Arnold does not explicitly disclose:
the first protrusion and the second protrusion are disposed at positions not facing each other.
However, Goyal discloses:
a first housing (105, fig. 2) comprising a first protrusions (113, fig. 2), and a second housing (103, fig. 2) comprising second protrusions (109, fig. 2) as coupling means (¶[0018]), which are not facing each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Duralek’s housing with Goyal’s teaching, such that the first protrusion and the second protrusion are disposed at positions not facing each other, in order to prevent relative motion between the first housing and the second housing, when these are subjected to torsional or bending forces (¶[0018]). Furthermore, the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (engaging protrusions) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Goyal (MPEP 2143).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duralek et al (US 20230101552; “Duralek” hereinafter), in view of Arnold (US 20050045358; “Arnold” hereinafter) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Watchko et al (US 6451374; “Watchko” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 12, Duralek in view of Arnold teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Duralek further discloses: wherein
the shielding material is applied to the substrate or the housing (¶[0033], ¶[0039]),
Duralek in view of Arnold does not explicitly disclose
the shielding material applied to the substrate or the housing has a high coating area in which a height of application is locally higher than in other areas, and
the high coating area is the low impedance region.
However, Watchko discloses:
a shielding material (28’, fig. 3) applied to a housing (18, fig. 3) a high coating area (50’, fig. 3) in which a height of application is locally higher than in other areas (52’, fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Watchko teaching into Duralek as modified by Arnold, such that the shielding material applied to the substrate or the housing has a high coating area in which a height of application is locally higher than in other areas, and the high coating area is the low impedance region, in order to enhance the performance of the shielding material relative to the housing when applied to said housing, since less force is required to deflect said gasket while its being compressed (col. 11, lines 51-57). Moreover, the particular known technique (application of gasket material) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Watchko. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (MPEP 2143).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duralek et al (US 20230101552; “Duralek” hereinafter), in view of Arnold (US 20050045358; “Arnold” hereinafter) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bunyan et al (US 20120133072; “Bunyan” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 13, Duralek in view of Arnold teaches the limitations of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose:
Wherein
the shielding material is a cured-in-place gasket.
However, Bunyan discloses:
a shielding material is a cured-in-place gasket (see at least ¶[0022], ¶[0030]-[0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Duralek’s shielding material as being a cured-in-place gasket, as taught by Bunyan, for the advantage of providing a soft and conformable compound which has fast, form stable dispense rates, low-force deflections during assembly and further cure in application for a robust, shock and vibration absorbing thermal or electrical assembly (¶[0022]). Furthermore, the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (form in place gaskets) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Bunyan (MPEP 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument:
“The Office Action suggests that given that the gaskets are compressed, the gaskets necessarily will have lower density at the more compressed portions, and that will in turn lead to lower impedance. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Duralek does not mention or suggest "density" or "impedance," much less the subject matter related thereof as recited in claim 1. In addition, the suggestion that the gasket at the more compressed portions must have more density is inconsistent with Duralek. Duralek specifically mentions that "The spaces 71 formed by undercuts 7 provide an area for the adjacent regions of the gasket 9 to be moved into when the assembly is compressed." (Duralek, [0036].) That is, instead of increasing the density at its original location, the gasket material can move into the largest spaces 71 when compressed due to the pressure”.
Examiner’s response:
Duralek clearly discloses in paragraph [0036] “the gasket material in these regions will be substantially uncompressed due to the space 71”. Paragraph [0037] discloses “The PCB 6 is sandwiched between the gaskets 9, 10, with the regions of the gaskets 9, 10 associated with the projecting regions of the first and second interface surfaces forming compressed regions 91, 101”.
Furthermore low impedance in compressed areas of conductive gaskets is common knowledge for one of ordinary skill in the art.
For example, Jemic discloses: “For conductive elastomer gaskets, typical industry recommendations advise a target compression between 10% and 30%. Compression beyond 30% increases the risk of permanent deformation or gasket set, while compression below 10% often yields unreliable contact” (as in high impedance). “JEMIC’s extensive testing confirms a recommended compression range for various gasket profiles and materials, validating this practice”. See Jemic Technology (https://www.jemic.com/emi-gasket/emi-gasket-design-shielding-performance/#:~:text=1.,and%20materials%2C%20validating%20this%20practice).
See also Journal of Applied Polymer Science | Wiley Online Library, section 5 (conclusion): (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/app.57937#:~:text=The%20ablation%20zone%2C%20which%20reduces,interplay%20of%20these%20two%20mechanisms).
Therefore, it’s common knowledge for one skilled in the art that the conductive filler compressed in regions 91 and 101 relative to uncompressed region 71, will results in a low impedance region due to the increased density and conductivity in regions 91 and 101. As such, Duralek discloses the limitations of claim 1.
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 PETER KRIM whose telephone number is (703)756-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am -4:30pm.
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, Allen L Parker can be reached at (303) 297-4722. 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.
/P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/SAGAR SHRESTHA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights