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 IDS filed on 02/17/2025 has been considered and made of record.
Oath/Declaration
The oath/declaration filed on 10/29/2024 is acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3, 6-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan [US 2005/0036279], in view of Cherniski et al. [US 6,297,446].
Regarding claim 1, Tan discloses an enclosure (12/42, figures 1-5) for an electronic device (10, figures 1-5), comprising: a conductive panel (24, figures 1-2) comprising a plurality of ventilation holes (15, figures 1-2), each ventilation hole having an inner perimeter (inner circle of the hole 15, figures 1-2); and a mesh (16, figures 1-3) attached to the conductive panel (figures 1-3).
Tan discloses the claimed invention except for the mesh comprising a plurality of cells, wherein each respective cell encloses the inner perimeter of a respective ventilation hole to form a conductive barrier around each respective ventilation hole.
Cherniski et al., disclose an EMC vent assembly (figures 1A-1D) comprising a conductive panel (a metal sheet 101, figures 1B-1D; col. 6, lines 6-16) including a plurality of ventilation holes (102, figures 1B-1D), each ventilation hole having an inner perimeter (inner perimeter 115, figures of the hole 102, figures 1C-1D); and a mesh (105, figures 1B-1D) attached to the conductive panel, and the mesh comprises a plurality of cells (106, figures 1B and 1D), wherein each respective cell encloses the inner perimeter of a respective ventilation hole to form a conductive barrier around each respective ventilation hole (figures 1B-1D).
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a mesh including a plurality of cells which is attached to a plurality of vent holes in a conductive panel of an electronic enclosure of Tan, as suggested by Cherniski et al., in order to provide effective EMI shielding for an electronic enclosure.
Regarding claim 2, Tan, in view of Cherniski et al., disclose the mesh is comprised of at least one material selected from a ground comprising conductive materials, resistant materials, and ferromagnetic materials (the metal mesh 16 and/or 44 is formed of metal; paragraph 0021, col. 3 of a table, figure 6).
Regarding claim 3, Tan, in view of Cherniski et al., further disclose wherein the mesh is attached to the conductive panel using at least one of conductive adhesives (figure 3; paragraph 0021, line 11), soldering, or mechanical fasteners.
Regarding claim 6, Tan discloses the claimed invention except for wherein each respective cell comprises a plurality of mesh holes.
Cherniski et al., further disclose wherein each respective cell comprises a plurality of mesh holes (106, figures 1B and 1D).
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a mesh design of Cherniski et al., with a conductive panel of an electronic enclosure of Tan, in order to ensure a plurality of mesh holes align with their corresponding vent holes of a conductive panel of an electronic enclosure.
Regarding claim 7, Tan discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a size of each mesh hole is smaller than a quarter wavelength of an operating frequency of the electronic device.
Cherniski et al., further disclose wherein a size of each mesh hole is smaller than a highest wavelength of an operating frequency of the electronic device (column 1, lines 29-40).
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to set a size of each mesh hole being smaller than a quarter wavelength of an operating frequency of the electronic device of Tan, in view of Cherniski et al., in order for performance metal to provide effective shielding in an electronic enclosure, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the dimensions or proportion of a component. A change in dimension of proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC System, Inc., 725 F .2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding claim 8, Tan discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a size of each mesh hole is larger than a threshold that allows sufficient airflow through the mesh to satisfy thermal requirements of the electronic device.
Cherniski et al., further disclose for wherein a size of each mesh hole (106, figures 1B and 1D) is larger than a threshold (102, figures 1B and 1D) that allows sufficient airflow through the mesh to satisfy thermal requirements of the electronic device.
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a mesh hole being larger than a threshold in an electronic enclosure of Tan, as suggested by Chernski et al., in order to maximize heat dissipation through the mesh holes in an electronic enclosure.
Regarding claim 9, Tan discloses a method for forming an enclosure for an electronic device (10, figures 1-5) to shield electromagnetic interference, comprising:
preparing a conductive panel (24, figures 1-2) comprising a plurality of ventilation holes (15, figures 1-2), each ventilation hole having an inner perimeter (inner circle of the hole 15, figures 1-2); and
fabricating a mesh (16, figures 1-3) attached to the conductive panel (figures 1-3).
Tan discloses the claimed invention except for the mesh comprising a plurality of cells, wherein each respective cell encloses the inner perimeter of a respective ventilation hole to form a conductive barrier around each respective ventilation hole.
Cherniski et al., disclose an EMC vent assembly (figures 1A-1D) comprising a conductive panel (a metal sheet 101, figures 1B-1D; col. 6, lines 6-16) including a plurality of ventilation holes (102, figures 1B-1D), each ventilation hole having an inner perimeter (inner perimeter 115, figures of the hole 102, figures 1C-1D); and a mesh (105, figures 1B-1D) attached to the conductive panel, and the mesh comprises a plurality of cells (106, figures 1B and 1D), wherein each respective cell encloses the inner perimeter of a respective ventilation hole to form a conductive barrier around each respective ventilation hole (figures 1B-1D).
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a mesh including a plurality of cells which is attached to a plurality of vent holes in a conductive panel of an electronic enclosure of Tan, as suggested by Cherniski et al., in order to provide effective EMI shielding for an electronic enclosure.
Regarding claim 11, Tan, in view of Cherniski et al., disclose the mesh is comprised of at least one material selected from a ground comprising conductive materials, resistant materials, and ferromagnetic materials (the metal mesh 16 and/or 44 is formed of metal; paragraph 0021, col. 3 of a table, figure 6).
Regarding claim 12, Tan discloses the claimed invention except for wherein each respective cell comprises a plurality of mesh holes.
Cherniski et al., further disclose wherein each respective cell comprises a plurality of mesh holes (106, figures 1B and 1D).
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a mesh design of Cherniski et al., with a conductive panel of an electronic enclosure of Tan, in order to ensure a plurality of mesh holes align with their corresponding vent holes of a conductive panel of an electronic enclosure.
Regarding claim 13, Tan discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a size of each mesh hole is smaller than a quarter wavelength of an operating frequency of the electronic device.
Cherniski et al., further disclose wherein a size of each mesh hole is smaller than a highest wavelength of an operating frequency of the electronic device (column 1, lines 29-40).
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to set a size of each mesh hole being smaller than a quarter wavelength of an operating frequency of the electronic device of Tan, in view of Cherniski et al., in order for performance metal to provide effective shielding in an electronic enclosure, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the dimensions or proportion of a component. A change in dimension of proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC System, Inc., 725 F .2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding claim 14, Tan discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a size of each mesh hole is larger than a threshold that allows sufficient airflow through the mesh to satisfy thermal requirements of the electronic device.
Cherniski et al., further disclose for wherein a size of each mesh hole (106, figures 1B and 1D) is larger than a threshold (102, figures 1B and 1D) that allows sufficient airflow through the mesh to satisfy thermal requirements of the electronic device.
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a mesh hole being larger than a threshold in an electronic enclosure of Tan, as suggested by Chernski et al., in order to maximize heat dissipation through the mesh holes in an electronic enclosure.
Regarding claim 15, Tan, in view of Cherniski et al., further disclose wherein the mesh is attached to the conductive panel using at least one of conductive adhesives (figure 3; paragraph 0021, line 11), soldering, or mechanical fasteners.
Regarding claim 16, Tan discloses an apparatus (figures 1-5) for shielding electromagnetic interference in an electronic device (10, figures 1-5), comprising: a plurality of ventilation holes (15, figures 1-2), each ventilation hole having an inner perimeter (inner circle of the hole 15, figures 1-2); and a mesh (16, figures 1-3) attached to the conductive panel (figures 1-3).
Tan discloses the claimed invention except for the mesh comprising a plurality of cells, wherein each respective cell encloses the inner perimeter of a respective ventilation hole to form a conductive barrier around each respective ventilation hole.
Cherniski et al., disclose an EMC vent assembly (figures 1A-1D) comprising a conductive panel (a metal sheet 101, figures 1B-1D; col. 6, lines 6-16) including a plurality of ventilation holes (102, figures 1B-1D), each ventilation hole having an inner perimeter (inner perimeter 115, figures of the hole 102, figures 1C-1D); and a mesh (105, figures 1B-1D) attached to the conductive panel, and the mesh comprises a plurality of cells (106, figures 1B and 1D), wherein each respective cell encloses the inner perimeter of a respective ventilation hole to form a conductive barrier around each respective ventilation hole (figures 1B-1D).
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a mesh including a plurality of cells which is attached to a plurality of vent holes in a conductive panel of an electronic enclosure of Tan, as suggested by Cherniski et al., in order to provide effective EMI shielding for an electronic enclosure.
Regarding claim 17, Tan discloses the claimed invention except for wherein each respective cell comprises a plurality of mesh holes.
Cherniski et al., further disclose wherein each respective cell comprises a plurality of mesh holes (106, figures 1B and 1D).
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a mesh design of Cherniski et al., with a conductive panel of an electronic enclosure of Tan, in order to ensure a plurality of mesh holes align with their corresponding vent holes of a conductive panel of an electronic enclosure.
Regarding claim 18, Tan discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a size of each mesh hole is smaller than a quarter wavelength of an operating frequency of the electronic device.
Cherniski et al., further disclose wherein a size of each mesh hole is smaller than a highest wavelength of an operating frequency of the electronic device (column 1, lines 29-40).
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to set a size of each mesh hole being smaller than a quarter wavelength of an operating frequency of the electronic device of Tan, in view of Cherniski et al., in order for performance metal to provide effective shielding in an electronic enclosure, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the dimensions or proportion of a component. A change in dimension of proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC System, Inc., 725 F .2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding claim 19, Tan discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a size of each mesh hole is larger than a threshold that allows sufficient airflow through the mesh to satisfy thermal requirements of the electronic device.
Cherniski et al., further disclose for wherein a size of each mesh hole (106, figures 1B and 1D) is larger than a threshold (102, figures 1B and 1D) that allows sufficient airflow through the mesh to satisfy thermal requirements of the electronic device.
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a mesh hole being larger than a threshold in an electronic enclosure of Tan, as suggested by Chernski et al., in order to maximize heat dissipation through the mesh holes in an electronic enclosure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 10 and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claim 4 discloses the combination features of “one or more structural supports, wherein the one or more structural supports comprises frames that connect adjacent cells, of the plurality of cells, within the mesh.” These features, in conjunction with other features, as claimed in the claim 1, were neither found to be disclosed, nor suggested by the prior art of records. Claim 5 depends on the allowed claim 4.
The method claim 10 discloses the step of adding one or more structural supports to the conductive panel, wherein the one or more structural supports comprises frames that connect adjacent cells, of the plurality of cells, within the mesh.” This step, in conjunction with other steps, as claimed in the claim 9, were neither found to be disclosed, nor suggested by the prior art of records.
The claim 20 discloses the combination features of “one or more structural supports, wherein the one or more structural supports comprises frames that connect adjacent cells, of the plurality of cells, within the mesh.” These features, in conjunction with other features, as claimed in the claim 16, were neither found to be disclosed, nor suggested by the prior art of records.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Clements et al. [US 5,928,076] disclose EMI-attenuating air ventilation panel;
Hailey et al. [US 6,252,161] disclose EMI shielding ventilation structure;
Lin et al. [US 2004/0233654] disclose EMI-attenuating air ventilation panel;
Cochrane et al. [US 2012/0285738] disclose shielding polymers formed into lattices providing EMI protection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hung S. Bui whose telephone number is (571)272-2102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8am-5pm.
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 on (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.
/HUNG S. BUI/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2841
/Hung S. Bui/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
03/06/2025