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 § 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 42-45 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. With regard to claim 42, it is unclear how the top port connector is connected both by bypass connection via cables to the circuit board and directly connected to the circuit board. For prior art analysis, any combination of cable and direct connection of a top port connector can be considered to meet this limitation. Claims 43-45 include all the limitations of claim 42 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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, 14-15, 34, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pogash et al. (10,476,198) in view of Zbinden et al. (2017/0077643).
With regard to claim 1, Pogash teaches, as shown in figures 1-6 and taught in column 4 lines 3-36: “A multi-level, multi-port connector assembly 100, comprising: an electromagnetic shielding cage 110 with… top port connector (upper 112 in figure 1); and a bottom port connector (lower 112 in figure 1) separate from the electromagnetic shielding cage 110 with... top port connector, wherein at least a portion of the top port connector is positioned over the bottom port connector when the electromagnetic shielding cage 110 with… top port connector is positioned over the bottom port connector, the electromagnetic shielding cage 110 provides shielding from a range of electromagnetic interference (EMI) for at least the top port connector and the bottom port connector” and the terminals 166 of the top port connector can be configured to be connected to a circuit board using cables.
Pogash does not specifically teach the top port connector attached to the shielding cage and the combined structure is positioned over the bottom port connector. However, Pogash teaches, as taught in column 4 lines 3-56, the top port connector separate from the bottom port connector and can therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the top port connector can be attached separately to the shielding cage before being positioned over the bottom port connector and would allow connection of the bottom port connector separately and allow the bottom port connector to be replace separately from the receptacle cage and top port connector.
Pogash does not teach: “the top port connector comprising high-speed” terminals “and low-speed” terminals “positioned between the high-speed” terminals, “the top port connector comprises high-speed communication signal terminals… low-speed communication signal terminals… and power terminals… the bottom port connector comprises high-speed communication signal terminals, low-speed communication signal terminals, and power terminals”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Zbinden teaches, as shown in figures 8-13 and taught in paragraphs 90-91: “the top port connector (120 in top-right 111 in figure 8) comprising high-speed” terminals “and low-speed” terminals “positioned between the high-speed” terminals, “the top port connector comprises high-speed communication signal terminals, low-speed communication signal terminals, and power terminals, the bottom port connector (120 in bottom-right 111 in figure 8) comprises high-speed communication signal terminals, low-speed communication signal terminals, and power terminals”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Zbinden with the invention of Pogash in order to provide power in addition to high- and low-speed communication signals (Zbinden, paragraph 90).
Neither Pogash nor Zbinden teach the high-speed terminals and the low-speed terminals being held in different wafers. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the top port connector with individual wafers holding the high-speed and the low-speed terminals in order to allow rearranging and individual replacement of the different types of terminals and is a known in the art for forming connectors (Zbinden, paragraph 12). Also, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Pogash and Zbinden do not teach the high-speed terminals in the top port connector being connected to the circuit board by cable at a first location and low-speed terminals in the top port connector by direct connection to the circuit board at a second location away from the first location. However, Pogash does teach, as taught in column 4 lines 3-36 the use of cables and direct connection to connect the terminals to a circuit board. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to use both direct connection and cable connection to separate locations, since the use of both is known and the different types of terminals, such as high-speed and low-speed terminals, would be easier to identify (Pogash, see column 6 lines 18-28 for different types of terminals) and to connect the different types of terminals to different components on the circuit board.
With regard to claim 2, Pogash as modified by Zbinden teaches: “The connector assembly as in claim 1”, as shown above.
Zbinden also teaches, as shown in figures 8-13 and taught in paragraphs 90-91: “wherein the top port connector further comprises ground” terminals, “and the low-speed” terminals “are positioned between the ground” terminals (the figures show the high-speed cable terminals that have the ground shielding connected to ground terminals in the connector as described in paragraphs 90-91 being located on the outside).
Neither Pogash nor Zbinden teach the ground terminals being held in different wafers. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the top port connector with individual wafers holding the ground terminals in order to allow rearranging and individual replacement of the different types of terminals and is known in the art (Zbinden, paragraph 12). Also, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
With regard to claim 3, Pogash as modified by Zbinden teaches: “The connector assembly as in claim 1”, as shown above.
Pogash also teaches, as shown in figures 1-6 and taught in column 4 lines 3-36: “wherein the bottom port connector comprises a surface mounted technology (SMT) connector (column 4 lines 3-11, the bottom port connector being mounted to the surface of a circuit board)”.
With regard to claim 5, Pogash as modified by Zbinden teaches: “The connector assembly as in claim 1”, as shown above.
Pogash also teaches, as shown in figures 1-6 and taught in column 4 lines 3-36: “wherein the top and bottom port connectors are configured to be connected to the circuit board using ball grid arrays, solder charging, press-fit, SMT (column 4 lines 3-11, the bottom port connector being mounted to the surface of a circuit board) or optical fiber”.
With regard to claim 14, Pogash as modified by Zbinden teaches: “The connector assembly as in claim 1”, as shown above.
Zbinden also teaches, as shown in figures 8-13 and taught in paragraphs 90-91, the terminals 166 of the top port connector can be configured to be connected to a circuit board using cables.
Zbinden also teaches, as shown in figures 8-13 and taught in paragraphs 90-91: “the high-speed communication signal terminals, low-speed communication signal terminals, and power terminals of the bottom part are configured to be connected… to the circuit board”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Zbinden with the invention of Pogash as modified by Zbinden in order to provide power in addition to high- and low-speed communication signals (Zbinden, paragraph 90).
That embodiment of Zbinden does not teach the high-speed communication signal terminals, low-speed communication signal terminals, and power terminals directly connected to the circuit board. However, in figure 5A, all the terminals of the lower connector 20b connected directly to the circuit board 50. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention combine the features of this embodiment of Zbinden with the invention of Pogash as modified by Zbinden in order to shorten the electrical paths of the transceivers (Zbinden, paragraph 75).
With regard to claim 15, Pogash as modified by Zbinden teaches: “The connector assembly as in claim 1… and the high-speed communication signal terminals of the bottom port connector”, as shown above.
Pogash does not teach power terminals in the top bottom port connector configured to be connected to the circuit board directly and the high-speed communication signal terminals of the bottom port connector are configured to be connected to the circuit board using cables, and configuring the low-speed communication signal terminals and power terminals of the bottom port connector to connect to the circuit board directly. However, Pogash does teach, as taught in column 4 lines 3-36 the use of both cables and direct connection to connect the terminals to a circuit board. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to use both direct connection and cable connection, since the use of both is known and the different types of terminals, such as power and communication terminals, would be easier to identify (Pogash, see column 6 lines 18-28 for different types of terminals).
With regard to claim 34, Pogash teaches, as shown in figures 1-6 and taught in column 4 lines 3-56: “A multi-level, multi-port connector assembly 100, comprising: a bottom port connector (lower 112 in figure 1) connected with a circuit board (taught in column 4 lines 3-36); and an electromagnetic shielding cage 110 with… top port connector (upper 112 in figure 1) separate from the bottom port connector… the electromagnetic shielding cage 110 being positioned over both the top port connector and the bottom port connector to provide shielding from a range of electromagnetic interference (EMI) for the top port connector and the bottom port connector, wherein the top port connector comprises power and communication signal terminals” and the terminals 166 of the top port connector can be configured to be connected to a circuit board using cables.
Pogash does not specifically teach the top port connector attached to the shielding cage and the combined structure is positioned over the bottom port connector. However, Pogash teaches, as taught in column 4 lines 3-56, the top port connector separate from the bottom port connector and can therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the top port connector can be attached separately to the shielding cage before being positioned over the bottom port connector and would allow connection of the bottom port connector separately and allow the bottom port connector to be replace separately from the receptacle cage and top port connector.
Pogash does not teach: “where the communication signal terminals are operable to conduct at least high-speed communication signals, the communication signal terminals of the top port connector operable to conduct the high-speed communication signals”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Zbinden teaches, as shown in figures 8-13 and taught in paragraphs 90-91: “where the communication signal terminals are operable to conduct at least high-speed communication signals, the communication signal terminals of the top port connector (120 in top-right 111 in figure 8)”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Zbinden with the invention of Pogash in order to provide power in addition to high- and low-speed communication signals (Zbinden, paragraph 90).
Neither Pogash nor Zbinden teach the high-speed terminals and the low-speed terminals being held in different wafers. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the top port connector with individual wafers holding the high-speed and the low-speed terminals in order to allow rearranging and individual replacement of the different types of terminals and is a known in the art for forming connectors (Zbinden, paragraph 12). Also, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Pogash and Zbinden do not teach the high-speed terminals in the top port connector being connected to the circuit board by cable at a first location and low-speed terminals in the top port connector by direct connection to the circuit board at a second location away from the first location. However, Pogash does teach, as taught in column 4 lines 3-36 the use of cables and direct connection to connect the terminals to a circuit board. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to use both direct connection and cable connection to separate locations, since the use of both is known and the different types of terminals, such as high-speed and low-speed terminals, would be easier to identify (Pogash, see column 6 lines 18-28 for different types of terminals) and to connect the different types of terminals to different components on the circuit board.
With regard to claim 41, Pogash as modified by Zbinden teaches: “The connector assembly as in claim 34”, as shown above.
Pogash also teaches, as shown in figures 1-6 and taught in column 4 lines 3-36, all the terminals 166 can be configured to be connected to a circuit board using cables.
Pogash does not teach: “the bottom port connector comprises high-speed communication signal terminals configured to be connected to the circuit board… and low-speed communication signal terminals connected… to the board”.
Zbinden also teaches, as shown in figures 8-13 and taught in paragraphs 90-91: “wherein the top port connector further comprises ground” terminals, “and the low-speed” terminals “are positioned between the ground” terminals (the figures show the high-speed cable terminals that have the ground shielding connected to ground terminals in the connector as described in paragraphs 90-91 being located on the outside) “the bottom port connector comprises high-speed communication signal terminals configured to be connected to the circuit board… and low-speed communication signal terminals connected… to the board”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Zbinden with the invention of Pogash as modified by Zbinden in order to provide power in addition to high-and low-speed communication signals (Zbinden, paragraph 90).
That embodiment of Zbinden does not teach the high-speed communication signal terminals connected to the circuit board using cables and low-speed communication signal terminals directly connected to the circuit board. However, in figure 5A, the terminals of the lower connector 20b connected directly to the circuit board 50. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention combine the features of this embodiment of Zbinden with the invention of Pogash as modified by Zbinden and connect the low-speed communication signal terminals directly to the circuit board and in order to shorten the electrical paths of the low-speed communication signal terminals (Zbinden, paragraph 75). Also, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to use both direct connection and cable connection, since the use of both is known and the different types of terminals, such as high-speed and low-speed communication signal terminals, would be easier to identify (Pogash, see column 6 lines 18-28 for different types of terminals).
Neither Pogash nor Zbinden teach the ground terminals being held in different wafers. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the top port connector with individual wafers holding the ground terminals in order to allow rearranging and individual replacement of the different types of terminals and is known in the art (Zbinden, paragraph 12). Also, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
With regard to claim 42, Pogash teaches, as shown in figures 1-6 and taught in column 4 lines 3-36: “A connector assembly 100, comprising: a top port connector (upper 112 in figure 1)… a bottom port connector (lower 112 in figure 1); and an electromagnetic shielding cage 110 positioned over the top port connector and the bottom port connector, wherein the top port connector is… bypass connected to the circuit board at a second position via cables connected to” the terminals 166.
Pogash does not teach: “the top port connector comprising high-speed” terminals “and low-speed” terminals “positioned between the high-speed” terminals.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Zbinden teaches, as shown in figures 8-13 and taught in paragraphs 90-91: “the top port connector (120 in top-right 111 in figure 8) comprising high-speed” terminals “and low-speed” terminals “positioned between the high-speed” terminals. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Zbinden with the invention of Pogash in order to provide power in addition to high- and low-speed communication signals (Zbinden, paragraph 90).
Neither Pogash nor Zbinden teach the high-speed terminals and the low-speed terminals being held in different wafers. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the top port connector with individual wafers holding the high-speed and the low-speed terminals in order to allow rearranging and individual replacement of the different types of terminals and is a known in the art for forming connectors (Zbinden, paragraph 12). Also, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Pogash and Zbinden do not teach the high-speed terminals in the top port connector being connected to the circuit board by cable at a first location and low-speed terminals in the top port connector by direct connection to the circuit board at a second location away from the first location. However, Pogash does teach, as taught in column 4 lines 3-36 the use of cables and direct connection to connect the terminals to a circuit board. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to use both direct connection and cable connection to separate locations, since the use of both is known and the different types of terminals, such as high-speed and low-speed terminals, would be easier to identify (Pogash, see column 6 lines 18-28 for different types of terminals) and to connect the different types of terminals to different components on the circuit board.
With regard to claim 43, Pogash as modified by Zbinden teaches: “The connector assembly as in claim 42”, as shown above.
Neither Pogash nor Zbinden specifically teach: “wherein the second position is substantially next to an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) on the circuit board”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the second position to be near an application-specific circuit on the circuit board in order to deliver the signals to the circuit that uses them more directly. Also, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
With regard to claim 44, Pogash as modified by Zbinden teaches: “The connector assembly as in claim 42”, as shown above.
Zbinden also teaches, as shown in figures 8-13 and taught in paragraphs 90-91: “wherein the top port connector further comprises ground” terminals, “and the low-speed” terminals “are positioned between the ground” terminals (the figures show the high-speed cable terminals that have the ground shielding connected to ground terminals in the connector as described in paragraphs 90-91 being located on the outside). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Zbinden with the invention of Pogash as modified by Zbinden in order to provide ground terminals in addition to high-and low-speed communication signals (Zbinden, paragraph 90).
Neither Pogash nor Zbinden teach the ground terminals being held in different wafers. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the top port connector with individual wafers holding the ground terminals in order to allow rearranging and individual replacement of the different types of terminals and is known in the art (Zbinden, paragraph 12). Also, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179
With regard to claim 45, Pogash as modified by Zbinden teaches: “The connector assembly as in claim 42”, as shown above.
Pogash and Zbinden do not teach the high-speed terminals in the bottom port connector being connected to the circuit board by cable at a first location and low-speed terminals in the bottom port connector by direct connection to the circuit board at a second location away from the first location. However, Pogash does teach, as taught in column 4 lines 3-36 the use of cables and direct connection to connect the terminals to a circuit board. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to use both direct connection and cable connection to separate locations, since the use of both is known and the different types of terminals, such as high-speed and low-speed terminals, would be easier to identify (Pogash, see column 6 lines 18-28 for different types of terminals) and to connect the different types of terminals to different components on the circuit board.
Claims 6, 8, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pogash et al. (10,476,198) in view of Zbinden et al. (2017/0077643) and Kachlic (2019/0115677).
With regard to claim 6, Pogash as modified by Zbinden teaches: “The connector assembly as in claim 1”, as shown above.
Pogash also teaches, as shown in figures 1-6: “wherein the electromagnetic shielding cage 110 comprises a cover 130, a cage base 132… and a front end-shield 114 and 144”.
Neither Pogash nor Zbinden teach the electromagnetic shielding cage comprising: “a top back cover, a bottom back cover; and the cover comprises apertures operable to allow air to flow into or out of an interior of the cage”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Kachlic teaches, as shown in figures 1-3, the electromagnetic shielding cage 5 comprising: “a top back cover (top portion of 90 in figure 3), a bottom back cover (bottom portion of 90 in figure 3); and the cover 30 comprises apertures 32 and 62 operable to allow air to flow into or out of an interior of the cage 5”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention combine the features of Kachlic with the invention of Pogash as modified by Zbinden in order to form a shield enclosure around the connectors (Kachlic, paragraph 22).
With regard to claim 8, Pogash as modified by Zbinden and Kachlic teaches: “The connector assembly as in claim 6”, as shown above.
Neither Pogash nor Zbinden nor Kachlic teach: “wherein each of the one or more apertures is configured to have a width and a depth to reduce effects of EMI on components within an interior of the assembly”. However, Kachlic teaches, as shown in figures 1-4 and taught in paragraph 23: the one or more apertures 71a being configured to have a” size “to reduce the effects of EMI on components within an interior of the assembly 1”. Kachlic does not specifically teach each of apertures configured to have a width and a depth to reduce the effects of EMI on components within an interior of the assembly. However, paragraph 23 teaches the size of apertures being optimized to provide EMI protection. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention adjust the size of all the apertures to optimize EMI protection in order to protect the components inside the assembly. Also, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With regard to claim 35, Pogash as modified by Zbinden teaches: “The connector assembly as in claim 34”, as shown above.
Pogash also teaches, as shown in figures 1-6: “wherein the electromagnetic shielding cage 110 comprises a cover 130, a cage base 132… and a front end-shield 114 and 144”.
Neither Pogash nor Zbinden teach: “the electromagnetic shielding cage comprising: “a top back cover, a bottom back cover”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Kachlic teaches, as shown in figures 1-3, the electromagnetic shielding cage 5 comprising: “a top back cover (top portion of 90 in figure 3), a bottom back cover (bottom portion of 90 in figure 3); and the cover 30 comprises apertures 32 and 62 operable to allow air to flow through into or out of an interior of the cage 5”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention combine the features of Kachlic with the invention of Pogash as modified by Zbinden in order to form a shield enclosure around the connectors (Kachlic, paragraph 22).
Neither Pogash nor Zbinden nor Kachlic teach: “wherein each of the apertures has a width and a depth to reduce effects of EMI on components within the connector assembly”. However, Kachlic teaches, as shown in figures 1-4 and taught in paragraph 23: the one or more apertures 71a being configured to have a” size “to reduce the effects of EMI on components within an interior of the assembly 1”. Kachlic does not specifically teach each of apertures configured to have a width and a depth to reduce the effects of EMI on components within an interior of the assembly. However, paragraph 23 teaches the size of apertures being optimized to provide EMI protection. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention adjust the size of all the apertures to optimize EMI protection in order to protect the components inside the assembly. Also, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 9 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pogash et al. (10,476,198) in view of Zbinden et al. (2017/0077643), Kachlic (2019/0115677), and Long et al. (2016/0211626).
With regard to claim 9, Pogash as modified by Zbinden and Kachlic teaches: “The connector assembly as in claim 6”, as shown above.
Pogash also teaches, as shown in figures 1-4 and taught in column 10 lines 11-29: “wherein the front end-shield comprises a plurality of conductive 250, deformable elements formed around part, or substantially all, of a perimeter of the end shield”.
Neither Pogash nor Zbinden nor Kachlic teach: “the elements comprising part of a ground conductor”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to ground the cage structure, since it is known to be used in order to reduce EMI leakage (Long, paragraph 30).
With regard to claim 39, Pogash as modified by Zbinden and Kachlic teaches: “The connector assembly as in claim 35”, as shown above.
Pogash also teaches, as shown in figures 1-4 and taught in column 10 lines 11-29: “wherein the front end-shield comprises a plurality of conductive 250, deformable elements formed around a perimeter of the end shield”.
Neither Pogash nor Zbinden nor Kachlic teach: “the elements comprising part of a ground conductor”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to ground the cage structure, since it is known to be used in order to reduce EMI leakage (Long, paragraph 30).
Claims 10 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pogash et al. (10,476,198) in view of Zbinden et al. (2017/0077643), Kachlic (2019/0115677), and Chen et al. (11,271,348).
With regard to claim 10, Pogash as modified by Zbinden and Kachlic teaches: “The connector assembly as in claim 6”, as shown above.
Kachlic also teaches, as shown in figures 1-4: “wherein the cage 5 further comprises an internal heat sink 100, first fastening clip 110”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention combine the features of Kachlic with the invention of Pogash as modified by Zbinden and Kachlic in order to dissipate excess heat.
Neither Pogash nor Zbinden nor Kachlic teach: “a top heat sink and second fastening clip”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Chen teaches, as shown in figure 16: “a top heat sink 1090 and second fastening clip 1092”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention combine the features of Chen with the invention of Pogash as modified by Zbinden and Kachlic in order to provide heat protection to the top port (Chen, column 8 line 66 - column 9 line 15).
With regard to claim 40, Pogash as modified by Zbinden and Kachlic teaches: “The connector assembly as in claim 35”, as shown above.
Kachlic also teaches, as shown in figures 1-4: “wherein the cage 5 further comprises an internal heat sink 100, first fastening clip 110”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention combine the features of Kachlic with the invention of Pogash as modified by Zbinden and Kachlic in order to dissipate excess heat.
Neither Pogash nor Zbinden nor Kachlic teach: “a top heat sink and second fastening clip”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Chen teaches, as shown in figure 16: “a top heat sink 1090 and a second fastening clip 1092”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention combine the features of Chen with the invention of Pogash as modified by Zbinden and Kachlic in order to provide heat protection to the top port (Chen, column 8 line 66 - column 9 line 15).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pogash et al. (10,476,198) in view of Zbinden et al. (2017/0077643), Kachlic (2019/0115677), Nichols et al. (2012/0196477).
With regard to claim 37, Pogash as modified by Zbinden and Kachlic teaches: “The connector assembly of claim 36”, as shown above.
Neither Pogash nor Zbinden nor Kachlic teach: “wherein a given sized aperture among the group of apertures is repeated aperiodically to avoid aperture to aperture enhancement at a given frequency or a band of frequencies”.
However, in the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Nichols teaches, as taught in paragraph 53, the resizing, reshaping and re-positioning of apertures for the purpose of preventing certain frequencies. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention change the size and position of the apertures in order to prevent EMI from specific frequencies (Nichols, paragraph 53. Also, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), a change in shape is generally recognizing as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976), and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claims 1 and 34, the Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach the high-speed and low-speed communication terminals held in individual wafers, with the high-speed wafers connected to the circuit board by cables to a first location and the low-speed communication wafers connected directly to the circuit board at a second location away from the first location.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M KRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-0277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at (571)270-3119. 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.
/JUSTIN M KRATT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831