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
Claims 19, 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19, lines 2-3, “the housing shoulder” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 21, “the multiple partial regions” lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al (US 5,473,111) in view of Oguri (US 2005/0170083).
Re claim 1, 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, but 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.
Re claim 2, 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 3, 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.
Re claim 6, wherein the mesh is square, rectangular (Figs 7 b-e, 3), polygonal, round, or oval.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al (US 5,473,111) in view of Oguri (US 2005/0170083) as applied to claim 1 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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al (US 5,473,111) in view of Oguri (US 2005/0170083) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Radu et al (US 6,538,903)
The teaching as discussed above 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.
Radu et al teach the use of an opening slot width (slot length) is smaller or equal to λ/10 (less than about λ/20, claim 2).
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 or equal to λ/10 for preventing undesirable electromagnetic radiation through the opening.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al (US 5,473,111) in view of Oguri (US 2005/0170083) and of Cook et al (US 5,034,856) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view Radu et al (US 6,538,903).
The teaching as discussed above 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.
Radu et al teach the use of an opening slot width (slot length) is smaller or equal to λ/10 (less than about λ/20, claim 2).
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 or equal to λ/10 for preventing undesirable electromagnetic radiation through the opening.
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.
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 λ/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 or equal to λ/10 for preventing undesirable electromagnetic radiation through the opening.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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) as applied to claim 17 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-29 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
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.
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