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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0175183 A1 (hereinafter “Lo”).
Regarding claim 1, Lo discloses an electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) shield for providing electromagnetic compatibility of electronic components (RF can 100), the EMC shield comprising:
a first portion (rectangular wall 110) being arranged for attachment to a printed circuit board (PCB 50; see ¶¶ 0022 and 0027; see also, Figs. 2A-3);
a second portion (rectangular fingers 112) being arranged for attachment to a housing (SHE frame 150) at least partially enclosing the printed circuit board (see Figs. 2A-3), wherein the first (110) and second portions (112) are arranged at an angle to each other (see ¶¶ 0010 and 0022; see also, Figs. 1A-3); and
a third portion connecting the first and second portions (portion where rectangular wall 110 and rectangular fingers 112 meet; see Figs. 1A-3), wherein the third portion is a bend portion between the first portion and the second portion (see ¶ 0027).
Regarding claim 2, Lo discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Lo further
discloses that the first portion (110) is substantially perpendicular to the second portion (112; see ¶¶ 0010 and 0022; see also, Figs. 1A-3).
Regarding claim 6, Lo discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Lo further
discloses that the first portion (110) is formed as one or more walls (see Figs. 1A-2B), and the second portion (112) is formed as one or more walls (see ¶¶ 0011 and 0024; see also, Figs. 1A-2A).
Regarding claim 7, Lo discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Lo further
discloses that the first portion (110) is formed as a plurality of walls forming a prism having an opening, and the prism has a substantially rectangular base or a substantially circular base (see Figs. 1A-B showing four walls forming a rectangular prism having a rectangular opening).
Regarding claim 14, Lo discloses an electronic unit comprising:
the printed circuit board (50);
the housing (150) at least partially enclosing the printed circuit board (see Figs. 2A-3); and
the EMC shield of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the first portion (110) is attached to the printed circuit board (see ¶¶ 0022 and 0027; see also, Figs. 2A-3), and
wherein the second portion (112) is attached to the housing (see ¶ 0027; see also, Figs. 2A-3).
Regarding claim 17, Lo discloses all the limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Lo
further discloses that the second portion (112) is directly attached to the housing (see ¶ 0027; see also, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Lo discloses all the limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Lo
further discloses an integrated circuit component (IC chip 52) mounted on the printed circuit board (see ¶ 0026; see also, Figs. 2A-3), wherein:
the EMC shield (100) surrounds the integrated circuit component (see Figs. 2A-3),
the housing (150) includes a pedestal (underside pedestal 154) attached to the integrated circuit component (see ¶ 0026; see also, Figs. 2A-3), and
the pedestal (154) is at least partially located in at least a part of an opening of the first portion (110; see Figs. 2A-3).
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo.
Regarding claim 3, Lo discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Lo further discloses that the second portion and the third portion are arranged such that the second portion has spring properties (see ¶¶ 0011 and 0028; see also, Fig. 3). Lo does not mention the specific bending radius of the third portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to configure the third portion to have a bending radius of at least 0.5 mm since such a modification would involve a mere change in the size of a component. One would be motivated to experiment with different bending radii in order to discover an appropriate value, or range of values, that provides the third portion with the desired amount of elastic deformation. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding claim 4, Lo discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Lo further discloses that the second portion and the third portion are arranged such that the second portion has spring properties (see ¶¶ 0011 and 0028; see also, Fig. 3). Lo does not mention the specific bending radius of the third portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to configure the third portion to have a bending radius of at least 1.0 mm since such a modification would involve a mere change in the size of a component. One would be motivated to experiment with different bending radii in order to discover an appropriate value, or range of values, that provides the third portion with the desired amount of elastic deformation. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding claim 5, Lo discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Lo further discloses that the second portion and the third portion are arranged such that the second portion has spring properties (see ¶¶ 0011 and 0028; see also, Fig. 3). Lo does not mention the specific bending radius of the third portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to configure the third portion to have a bending radius between 1.0 mm and 3.0 mm since such a modification would involve a mere change in the size of a component. One would be motivated to experiment with different bending radii in order to discover an appropriate value, or range of values, that provides the third portion with the desired amount of elastic deformation. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,292,373 B1 (hereinafter “Li”).
Lo discloses all the limitations of claim 7 as stated above. Lo fails to teach that the third portion is bent outwards from the first portion such that the second portion forms a flange arranged for being attached to the housing.
Li discloses an EMC shield (EMI shield 10) comprising first (walls 22, 24, 26, and 28), second (ends of tab portions 18), and third portions (bent part of tab portions 18). The third portion is bent outwards from the first portion (see Fig. 1) such that the second portion forms a flange arranged for being attached to a housing (bracket 34; see Figs. 8-10).
Li is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the EMC shield taught by Lo so that the third portion is bent outwards from the first portion such that the second portion forms a flange arranged for being attached to the housing. Creating an outwardly facing flange would create more space in the EMC shield’s opening, allowing for additional components and a larger heat conducting pedestal to be accommodated therein.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0272188 A1 (hereinafter “Chan”).
Regarding claim 9, Lo discloses all the limitations of claim 7 as stated above. Lo lacks a specific teaching that the first portion includes a plurality of mounting tabs arranged along a first edge.
Chan discloses an EMC shield (EMI cage 10) comprising a first portion (sides 16, 18, 20, and 22) attached to a circuit board (circuit board 12; see ¶ 0015). The first portion includes a plurality of mounting tabs (mounting legs 26) arranged along a first edge, the plurality of mounting tabs are arranged equidistantly, and each mounting tab is substantially rectangular (see ¶ 0017; see also, Figs. 1-5).
Chan is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the first portion of the EMC shield to include a plurality of mounting tabs arranged along a first edge, the mounting tabs being equidistant from one another and substantially rectangular. Such mounting tabs are a conventional means by which an EMC shield can be attached to a printed circuit board.
Regarding claim 10, Lo in view of Chan teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as stated above. Lo in view of Chan further teaches that the second portion (Lo: 112; Chan: contact fingers 34) and the third portion (Lo: portion where rectangular wall 110 and rectangular fingers 112 meet; Chan: portion where contact fingers 34 bend) include a plurality of recesses arranged along a second edge, the recesses are arranged equidistantly, and each recess is substantially rectangular or U-shaped (Lo: see Figs. 1A-2A; Chan: see Figs. 1 and 4-5).
Regarding claim 11, Lo in view of Chan teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as stated above. Lo in view of Chan further teaches that each recess has an axis in a plane being substantially parallel to an axis of the prism such that the second portion has spring properties in a direction substantially parallel to the axis of the prism (Lo: see ¶ 0028 and Fig. 3).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lo.
Regarding claim 12, Lo discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Lo does not explicitly disclose how the EMC shield is formed. It does mention, however, that its fingers 112 are created by stamping RF can 100 (see ¶ 0028).
Lo discloses every structural element of the EMC shield set forth in claim 1. Lo further discloses that the EMC shield is made of metal (see ¶¶ 0009 and 0029), but is silent as to the method of its formation. The claimed phrase “formed from stamped and bent sheet metal” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation; that is, that the EMC shield is made by stamping and bending sheet metal. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made, and the burden is shifted to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.
Therefore, even though Lo is silent as to the process used to form its EMC shield, it appears that the product in Lo is the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both Applicant’s product and the prior art product are made of metal.
Regarding claim 13, Lo discloses or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 12 as stated above. Lo is silent as to whether the EMC shield is integrally formed from one piece of sheet metal and as to how the edges are connected to form a closed polygon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to form the EMC shield integrally from one piece of sheet metal since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
The EMC shield of Lo forms a closed polygon (see Figs. 1A-B), but Lo is silent as to the method by which the closed polygon is formed. The claimed phrase “welded or pressed at at least two edges” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation; that is, that the closed polygon is formed by welding or pressing at at least two edges. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made, and the burden is shifted to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.
Therefore, even though Lo is silent as to the process used to form its EMC shield, it appears that the product in Lo is the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both Applicant’s product and the prior art product form a closed polygon.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0022290 A1 (hereinafter “Lin”).
Regarding claim 15, Lo discloses all the limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Lo lacks a specific teaching that the second portion is attached to the housing via one or more pads made of a material being one or more of compressible, thermally conductive, or electrically conductive.
Lin discloses an EMC shield (BLS fence 108) having first (sidewalls 112), second (upper portion 116), and third portions (where BLS fence 108 bends). The second portion (116) is attached to a housing (device housing 136) via a pad (electrically-conductive gasket 104; see ¶ 0041) made of a compressible (see ¶ 0023), thermally conductive (see ¶ 0049), and electrically conductive material (see ¶ 0042).
Lin is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to attach the second portion to the housing via one or more compressible, thermally conductive, and electrically conductive pads. Doing so would create a thermally conductive and electrically conductive pathway between the EMC shield and the housing, helping to improve EM shielding and dissipate heat (Lin: see ¶ 0049).
Regarding claim 16, Lo in view of Lin teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Lo in view of Lin further teaches that each pad is either glued on the housing or is compressed between a corresponding second portion and the housing with no glue being used (Lin: see ¶ 0041 stating that electrically-conductive gasket 104 is directly compressed between upper portion 116 and device housing 136).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS TERRY MULARSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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.
/R.T.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/JERRY WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights