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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5, “the mesh size” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 22-29 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re claim 22, 28, 29, the phrase "lattice-like or honeycomb-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by " the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
claims 23-27 are included because of their dependencies.
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) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al (US 5,473,111) in view of Radu et al (US 6,538,903).
Re claim 17, Hattori et al disclose a housing (enclosure) for an electronic device (electronic circuit card 72), the housing comprising:
a housing part (73) formed from a plastic (col. 1, line 66) that is electrically non-conductive (functioned as claimed), wherein the housing part comprises a metallization mesh (conductive wire netting 74) (col, 2, lines 2-3) provided on an interior surface of the housing part (Fig 7e), wherein the mesh is square, rectangular (Figs 7b-e, 3), polygonal, round, or oval, but does not disclose an opening width of the mesh is smaller or equal to λ/10, wherein λ is a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the electronic device and the metallization mesh is applied by a laser direct structuring process.
Re claim 18, wherein the housing part is configured in a troughlike manner, wherein on the interior surface of the housing part the metallization mesh extends from a bottom portion via a side wall portion up to a circumferential housing shoulder or housing flange which runs parallel or substantially parallel to the bottom portion (Fig 7e).
Re claim 19, further comprising a screw opening disposed in the housing shoulder (Fig 2), wherein the housing shoulder is configured to form a bearing surface for the electronic device to be arranged in the housing (Fig 7b) and Hattori et al recite "the cover 2 is fitted to the box 1 in any of several conventional manner (col. 3, lines 46-47), but does not disclose multiple screw openings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include additional screw opening with the housing of Hattori et al for securing the housing parts together, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Radu et al teach the use of an opening slot width (slot length) is smaller or equal to λ/10 (less than about 1/20, col. 11, lines 27-32), where is a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the electronic device (col. 5, lines 55-58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the mesh of Hattori et al by employing the opening smaller than or equal to λ/10 for preventing undesirable electromagnetic through the opening.
The limitations of “the metallization mesh is applied by a laser direct structuring process” have been considered, but does not result in a structural difference. The presence of process limitations in product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to that product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al (US 5,473,111) in view of Radu et al (US 6,538,903) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Oguri (US 2005/0170083).
The teaching as discussed above does not disclose wherein the housing part comprises multiple partial regions the metallization mesh has different mesh sizes and/or different thicknesses in the multiple-partial regions.
Oguri teaches housing part (23) comprises multiple partial regions (A, B) (Fig 8c), metallization mesh (20) has different mesh sizes [0071] and/or different thicknesses in the multiple-partial regions (Fig 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the metallization mesh of Hattori et al by employing different mesh sizes for enhancing radio wave shielding.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al (US 5,473,111) in view of Radu et al (US 6,538,903) and Oguri (US 2005/0170083) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Cook et al (US 5,034,856).
The teaching as discussed above does not disclose a wall portion separating the multiple partial regions.
Cook et al teach a wall portion (84) separates multiple partial regions (Fig 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the wall portion with the housing of Hattori et al for reducing radiation leakage between the circuits.
Claim(s) 22-24, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacLaughlin (US 2017/0299735) in view of Oguri (US 2005/0170083).
Re claim 22, MacLaughlin discloses
a housing (14) having a first housing part (16) and a second housing part (18);
a printed circuit board (36), which has at least one electronic component (IC chip [0026]),
wherein the printed circuit board is received in a region between the first and second housing parts (Fig 3); wherein a housing wall of at least the first housing part is formed from a plastic [0032] that is electrically non-conductive (functioned as claimed); wherein, on an inside of the housing wall of at least the first housing part, a metallization is provided which has a lattice-like (50) or honeycomb-like structure and is formed from a plurality of intersecting metallization regions running in a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction [0026]; wherein the metallization is applied by a laser direct structuring process [0029]; but does not disclose wherein at least the first housing part comprises multiple partial regions, and the metallization has different mesh sizes and/or different thicknesses in the multiple partial regions.
Re claim 23, wherein the printed circuit board is held clamped between the first and second housing parts (Fig 3).
Re claim 24, wherein the metallization of the first housing part extends from a bottom portion via a side wall portion up to a circumferential housing shoulder or housing flange which runs parallel or substantially parallel to the bottom portion (Fig 5).
Re claim 28, wherein the at least one electronic component is arranged on a side of the printed circuit board that faces the first housing part having the lattice-like or honeycomb-like metallization [0026].
Oguri teaches housing part (23) comprises multiple partial regions (A, B) (Fig 8c), metallization mesh (20) has different mesh sizes [0071] and/or different thicknesses in the multiple-partial regions (Fig 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the metallization mesh of MacLaughlin by employing different mesh sizes for enhancing radio wave shielding.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacLaughlin (US 2017/0299735) in view of Oguri (US 2005/0170083) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Radu et al (US 6,538,903).
Re claim 29, wherein the lattice-like or honeycomb-like structure has square, rectangular, polygonal, round, or oval meshes (Fig 3), but does not disclose wherein the mesh size of the lattice-like or honeycomb-like structure is selected such that the opening width of a mesh is smaller or equal to λ/10, wherein λ is a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by the electronic component and/or which leads to interference of the electronic component due to radiation from outside the housing.
Radu et al teach the use of an opening slot width (slot length) is smaller or equal to λ/10 (less than about 1/20, col. 11, lines 27-32), where is a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the electronic device (col. 5, lines 55-58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the mesh of MacLaughlin by employing the opening smaller than or equal to λ/10 for preventing undesirable electromagnetic through the opening.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17 have been considered but are moot.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 30-33 allowed.
The indicated allowability of claims 22-24, 28-29 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Oguri (US 2005/0170083).
Claims 25-27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG V NGO whose telephone number is (571)272-1979. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 M-F.
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, Imani 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.
/HUNG V NGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights