Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/7/25 (both), 2/26/26 and 6/3/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
3. Claims 2-15 are pending in the application. Claim 1 is cancelled.
Note: Claim 2 is rejected twice below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
4. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 2-4, 7, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Lee et al. (US 9,774,409). (“Lee”).
6. Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches An enclosure for testing electronic devices [Figures 1-5, an enclosure 402 for testing electronic devices is shown], the enclosure comprising: a first surface and a second surface, wherein the first surface has port that provides a point of connection or a point of entry from outside the enclosure to inside the enclosure [Figures 1-5, the enclosure 402 comprises a first surface (Figure 4, left side of enclosure) and a second surface (Figure 4, right side of enclosure), the first surface has port (see 404) that provides a point of connection or entry from outside the enclosure to inside the enclosure]; and a flexible container positioned adjacent to the first surface, the flexible container including a plurality of static shielding material pieces [Figures 1-5, a flexible container 436(2) positioned adjacent to the first surface is shown, the flexible container includes a static shielding material pieces; see Column 5, lines 30-51, Column 6, lines 20-60, Column 8, lines 51-67].
7. Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches wherein the flexible container is sealed [Figures 1-5, the flexible container 436(2) is sealed].
8. Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches wherein the flexible container is made of a static shielding material [Figures 1-5, the flexible container 436(2) is made of a static shielding material].
9. Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches wherein the plurality of static shielding material pieces are not stacked in the flexible container [Figures 1-5, the arrangement is shown].
10. Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches further comprising: a second flexible container positioned adjacent to the first surface, the second flexible container including a plurality of static shielding material pieces [Figure 4, see second flexible container 436(2)].
11. Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches further comprising: a plurality of flexible containers, the plurality of flexible containers and the flexible container substantially filling a chamber of the enclosure in which the plurality of flexible containers and the flexible container are positioned [Figures 1-5, the arrangement is shown].
12. Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches wherein the port is an opening, the enclosure further comprising: one or more electronics cables entering the enclosure through the opening of the first surface [Figures 1-5, the port 404 is an opening allowing cables to enter the enclosure 402].
13. Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches wherein the port is a socket for receiving an electronics cable [Figures 1-5, the port 404 is a socket].
14. Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches further comprising: static shielding material attached to one or more interior surfaces of the enclosure [Figures 1-5, the arrangement is shown].
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.
15. 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.
16. Claims 5-6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Miranda Gavillan et al. (US 10,890,955). (“Miranda”).
17. Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches the enclosure.
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein at least some of the plurality of static shielding material pieces includes a layer of flexible polyester film.
However, Miranda teaches wherein at least some of the plurality of static shielding material pieces includes a layer of flexible polyester film [Figures 1-10, Column 2, lines 26-30, Column 9, lines 25-29 teaches a flexible polyester static film].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee with Miranda. Doing so would allow Lee to comprise a flexible polyester static film which would help resist environmental conditions from outside the enclosure.
18. Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches the enclosure.
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein at least some of the plurality of static shielding material pieces include one or more polyethylene terephthalate layers.
However, Miranda teaches wherein at least some of the plurality of static shielding material pieces include one or more polyethylene terephthalate layers [Figures 1-10, plastic enclosure 502 is shown].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee with Miranda. Doing so would allow Lee to comprise a plastic enclosure which would help resist environmental conditions from outside the enclosure.
19. Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches the enclosure.
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the flexible container includes a layer of flexible polyester film.
However, Miranda teaches wherein the flexible container includes a layer of flexible polyester film [Figures 1-10, Column 2, lines 26-30, Column 9, lines 25-29 teaches a flexible polyester container].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee with Miranda. Doing so would allow Lee to comprise a flexible polyester container which would help resist environmental conditions from outside the enclosure.
20. Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches the enclosure.
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the flexible container includes one or more polyethylene terephthalate layers.
However, Miranda teaches wherein the flexible container includes one or more polyethylene terephthalate layers [Figures 1-10, plastic container 502 is shown].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee with Miranda. Doing so would allow Lee to comprise a plastic container which would help resist environmental conditions from outside the enclosure.
21. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Winch et al. (US 2014/0020946). (“Winch”).
22. Regarding claim 2, Winch teaches An enclosure for testing electronic devices [Figures 1-11, an enclosure 100 for testing electronic devices is shown], the enclosure comprising: a first surface and a second surface, wherein the first surface has port that provides a point of connection or a point of entry from outside the enclosure to inside the enclosure [Figures 1-6, the enclosure 100 comprises a first surface 107 and a second surface (opposite to 107), the first surface has port 113 that provides a point of connection or entry from outside the enclosure to inside the enclosure]; and a flexible container positioned adjacent to the first surface, the flexible container including a plurality of static shielding material pieces [Figures 1-6, a flexible mesh container 113 positioned adjacent to the first surface is shown, the flexible container includes a static shielding material pieces; see P(0031, 0032, 0036)].
Allowable Subject Matter
23. Claim 10 is 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.
10. (New) The enclosure of claim 2, wherein: the plurality of static shielding material pieces includes a plurality of static shielding strips; a length of a first strip of the plurality of static shielding strips is at least double a width of the first strip, and the length of the first strip is at least double a height of the first strip; and a length of a second strip of the plurality of static shielding strips is at least double a width of the second strip, and the length of the second strip is at least double a height of the second strip.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Anderson et al. (US 2016/0302332), Figures 1-2, electromagnetically protected electronic enclosure is shown.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-2258. 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.
/NEEL D SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights