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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the following claimed subject matter:
“an entire range in a longitudinal direction of a cable,”
“entire ranges in the longitudinal direction of portions at ends of adjacent differential pairs.”
Correction is required. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
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.
Claims 2-3, 6-8, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagawatari et al. (US 8,348,699) in view of Peloza et al. (US 6,722,898) and Murayama et al. (US 6,764,342).
Regarding claim 8, Nagawatari discloses (in Fig. 12) a cable connector assembly comprising: one or more cables (102); and a cable connector for electrically connecting the one or more cables to an electronic device, the cable connector comprising: a housing (2, 4A), and a metal shield member (4, 42) configured to cover a circumference of a part near an end (part of 102 inside the shield member) of a differential pair on the electronic device side, the differential pair (intended use) being formed of the one or more cables, the metal shield member comprising: a first shield member comprising a metal underside shield member (4A); and a second shield member comprising a metal U-shaped shield member (42, Fig. 12); wherein each cable includes a conductive coating film (107) and a conducting wire (102) covered by the braided wires, wherein the end of the differential pair includes a tip of each cable where the conductive coating film is absent and the conducting wire is exposed (Fig. 9), wherein the tip (102A) of each cable includes a connection portion with an external terminal (12, Fig. 2); and wherein the shield member surrounds an upper side, an underside side, a left side and a right side of an entire range (see Figs. 1, 2, 12 and 13) in a longitudinal direction of the cable (102) of a portion where the conducting wire (102A) is exposed at the end of said each of the plurality of differential pairs, and separates ends (102) of adjacent differential pairs from each other (see Figs. 12 and 14).
Nagawatari does not discloses the conductive coating film being formed of braided wires. Peloza teaches that the conductive coating can be formed of braided wires (braided tube, col. 1 lines 20-22 and 51-54). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the conductive coating with braided wires, as taught by Peloza, in order to provide a known and effective conductive coating.
Murayama teaches a shield member (90) separates, from each other, entire ranges in the longitudinal direction of portions at ends of the adjacent differential pairs where the conducting wires (201) are exposed (Figs. 4 and 11; 90 extends along entire distance of 201). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the shield extending to a portion in which the conductive wires are exposed, as taught by Murayama, in order to enhance shielding between the pairs.
Regarding claim 2, Nagawatari discloses the shield member having a first shield member (4) configured to cover one side of the circumference of the differential pair and at least one second shield member (42) configured to cover all other sides of the circumference of the differential pair.
Regarding claim 3, Nagawatari discloses a plurality of second shield members (42, 42) arranged in parallel in a predetermined direction (left to right in Fig. 12), and wherein the first shield member is integrally formed in the predetermined direction with respect to the plurality of second shield members.
Regarding claim 6, Nagawatari discloses that the shield member covers the differential pairs each formed of two cables (intended use, Figs. 12 and 14).
Regarding claim 7, Nagawatari discloses that the shield member covers the differential pairs each formed of one cable (intended use).
Regarding claim 13, Nagawatari discloses a second plurality of differential pairs formed of one or more cables stacked in a vertical direction (left to right in Fig. 12) with respect to the plurality of differential pairs to form multiple layers.
Regarding claim 14, Nagawatari discloses the metal shield member being a thin plate member (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 16, Nagawatari discloses an underside of the metal U-shaped shield member being an open face (Fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as applied.
Please note that Nagawatari discloses that the shield member surrounds an upper side, an underside side, a left side and a right side of an entire range (see Figs. 1, 2, 12 and 13) in a longitudinal direction of the cable (102) of a portion where the conducting wire (102A) is exposed at the end of said each of the plurality of differential pairs, and separates ends (102) of adjacent differential pairs from each other (see Figs. 12 and 14).
Additionally, Murayama teaches a shield member (90) separates, from each other, entire ranges (201 as shown in Fig. 11) in the longitudinal direction of portions at ends of the adjacent differential pairs where the conducting wires (201) are exposed (Figs. 4 and 11; 90 extends along entire distance of 201).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to Applicant's arguments that “even if the ground plates 30 and separators 90) of Murayama were applied to the connector of Nagawatari, they would physically contact the main body 2, so it is not possible to form the ground plates 30 and separators 90 so as to extend to the linear conductor 102A”, please note that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Nonetheless, please note that Nagawatari teaches respective spaces in the body (2) to accommodate the shield member (90).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELIX O FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-2003. 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, Renee Luebke can be reached on (571)272-2009. 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.
/FELIX O FIGUEROA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833
Prosecution Insights