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 .
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 2/4/26, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/ABDULLAH A RIYAMI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831
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 1-12, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel (2016/0234368) in view of Wanha et al. (2015/0079845).
With regard to claim 1, Goel teaches, as shown in figures 2-3 and taught in paragraphs 44-53: “A cable assembly (shown in figure 2) comprising: a first connector 9 that includes a first connector housing (housing of 9 in figure 2)… at least two connector cables 8 that each include a corresponding cable conductor… a second connector 10 that includes a second connector housing (housing of 10 in figure 2) and that is connected to respective ends of the at least two connector cables 8 that are opposite to the ends of the at least two connector cables connected to the first connector; a substrate 12; and a memory module 14 mounted to the substrate 12, wherein the substrate 12 and the memory module 14 are both located outside of the first connector housing, are located outside of the second connector housing, are spaced away from the first connector housing, and are spaced away from the second connector housing”.
Goel does not teach: “at least two connector conductors and at least two signal conductors included in the first connector housing; wherein each of the at least two connector cables is physically connected to a respective one of the at least two connector conductors; at least two signal cables that each include a corresponding signal conductor, wherein each of the at least two signal cables is physically connected to a respective one of the at least two signal conductors… the at least two signal cable are each physically connected to the substrate such that an end of each of the at least two signal cables that is not connected to the respective one of the at least two signal conductors is terminated only at the substrate”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Wanha teaches, as shown in figures 1-7A and taught in paragraph 63: “at least two connector conductors 94 and at least two signal conductors 91 included in the first connector housing 62; wherein each of the at least two connector cables 68 is physically connected to a respective one of the at least two connector conductors 94; at least two signal cables 68 that each include a corresponding signal conductor 70a and 70b, wherein each of the at least two signal cables 68 is physically connected to a respective one of the at least two signal conductors 91… the at least two signal cables 68 are each physically connected to the substrate 50 such that an end of each of the at least two signal cables 68 that is not connected to the respective one of the at least two signal conductors (paragraph 63 teaches the cables can connect between the connector and the substrate or the connector and signal contacts of other connectors) is terminated only at the substrate 50”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Wanha with the invention of Goel in order to enable high-speed transmission without loss (Wanha, paragraph 63).
With regard to claim 2, Goel as modified by Wanha teaches: “The cable assembly of claim 1”, as shown above.
Neither Goel nor Wanha teach: “wherein the memory module includes an EEPROM (electronically erasable programmable read-only memory)”. However, Goel teaches in paragraph 18 that the memory of the memory module could be irremovably integrated in the memory module. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to use an irremovable memory such as an EEPROM, since an EEPROM is well known in the art (see, for example, Taylor et al. (2011/0115494) paragraph 83).
With regard to claim 3, Goel as modified by Wanha teaches: “The cable assembly of claim 1”, as shown above.
Wanha also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7D and taught in paragraph 82: “wherein each corresponding cable conductors 70a and 70b is at least partially surrounded by a ground shield layer 72”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Wanha with the invention of Goel as modified by Wanha in order to provide shielding for the signal conductors (Wanha, paragraph 82).
With regard to claim 4, Goel as modified by Wanha teaches: “The cable assembly of claim 3”, as shown above.
Neither Goel nor Wanha specifically teach: “wherein the ground shield layer is directly connected to a ground connection of the substrate”. 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 connect the ground shield to a ground on the substrate in order to ground the connection of the cable to the substrate.
With regard to claim 5, Goel as modified by Wanha teaches: “The cable assembly of claim 3”, as shown above.
Wanha also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7D: “wherein none of the at least two signal cables (70a of 70b of two of the cables 68) is electrically connected to ground”.
With regard to claim 6, Goel as modified by Wanha teaches: “The cable assembly of claim 1”, as shown above.
Goel also teaches, as shown in figures 2-3: “wherein the first connector 9 does not include a substrate or a circuit board”.
With regard to claim 7, Goel as modified by Wanha teaches: “The cable assembly of claim 1”, as shown above.
Goel also teaches, as shown in figures 2-3: “wherein the memory module 14 is covered by a housing that is separate from the first connector housing and the second connector housing”.
With regard to claim 8, Goel as modified by Wanha teaches: “The cable assembly of claim 1”, as shown above.
Goel as modified by Wanha also teaches: “wherein the memory module (14 in Goel) is not physically connected to any of the at least two connector conductors (conductors 70a and 70b of Wanha not connected to the substrate, as discussed above) and the at least two signal conductors.
With regard to claim 9, Goel as modified by Wanha teaches: “The cable assembly of claim 1”, as shown above.
Neither Goel nor Wanha specifically teach: “wherein the at least two signal cables include at least three signal cables that are each physically attached to the substrate”. However, in paragraph 63, Wanha teaches multiple cables being connected to multiple areas of either the substrate or other devices. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have three cables connected to the substrate in order to provide more high-speed data with less loss to the substrate (Wanha, paragraph 63).
With regard to claim 10, Goel as modified by Wanha teaches: “The cable assembly of claim 1”, as shown above.
Neither Goel nor Wanha specifically teach: “wherein the at least two signal cables include at least four signal cables conductors that are each physically attached to the substrate”. However, in paragraph 63, Wanha teaches multiple cables being connected to multiple areas of either the substrate or other devices. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have four cables connected to the substrate in order to provide more high-speed data with less loss to the substrate (Wanha, paragraph 63).
With regard to claim 11, Goel as modified by Wanha teaches: “The cable assembly of claim 1”, as shown above.
Neither Goel nor Wanha specifically teach: “wherein the at least two signal cables include at least five signal cables conductors that are each physically attached to the substrate”. However, in paragraph 63, Wanha teaches multiple cables being connected to multiple areas of either the substrate or other devices. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have five cables connected to the substrate in order to provide more high-speed data with less loss to the substrate (Wanha, paragraph 63).
With regard to claim 12, Goel as modified by Wanha teaches: “The cable assembly of claim 1”, as shown above.
Neither Goel nor Wanha specifically teach: “wherein the at least two signal cables include at least six signal cables conductors that are each physically attached to the substrate”. However, in paragraph 63, Wanha teaches multiple cables being connected to multiple areas of either the substrate or other devices. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have six cables connected to the substrate in order to provide more high-speed data with less loss to the substrate (Wanha, paragraph 63).
With regard to claim 14, Goel as modified by Wanha teaches: “The cable assembly of claim 1”, as shown above.
Wanha also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7A: “wherein: one of the at least two signal cables 68 includes a ground conductor 72”.
Neither Goel nor Wanha teach: “and the memory module is not physically connected to the ground conductor”. 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 not connect the ground of a cable to a memory module, since ground conductors do not transmit data and therefore would not be used to save data in a memory module while the ground conductor would still provide shielding between the data source and the memory module.
With regard to claim 16, Goel teaches, as shown in figures 2-3 and taught in paragraphs 44-53: “A cable assembly (shown in figure 2) comprising: a first connector 9… including a first connector housing (housing of 9 in figure 2); a second connector 10 including… a second connector housing (housing of 10 in figure 2) ; a substrate 12; a memory module 14 mounted to the substrate 12; a first cable 8… and a second cable 8… wherein the substrate 12 and the memory module 14 are both located outside of the first connector housing, located outside of the second connector housing, spaced away from the first connector housing, and spaced away from the second connector housing”.
Goel does not teach: “a first contact and a second contact provided in” the first connector housing, “a first contact and a second contact provided in” the second connector housing, the first cable “physically connected to the first contact of the first connector and physically connected to the first contact of the second connector”, or the second cable “physically connected to the second contact of the first connector and physically connected to the substrate”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Wanha teaches, as shown in figures 1-7A and taught in paragraph 63: “a first contact (bottom-most conductor 91 in figure 7) and a second contact (bottom-most contact of the second from the bottom-most pair of contacts 91 in figure 7) provided in” the first connector housing 80, “a first contact (a contact of a second connector described in paragraph 63) and a second contact (another contact of a second connector, as described in paragraph 63) provided in” the second connector housing, the first cable “physically connected to the first contact of the first connector and physically connected to the first contact (contact where 70a of the cable 68 between the first and second connectors as described in paragraph 63 is connected) of the second connector”, and the second cable (cable connected between 62 and the substrate 50, as described in paragraph 63) “physically connected to the second contact of the first connector and physically connected to the substrate 50”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Wanha with the invention of Goel in order to enable high-speed transmission without loss (Wanha, paragraph 63).
With regard to claim 17, Goel as modified by Wanha teaches: “The cable assembly of claim 16”, as shown above.
Wanha also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7A and taught in paragraph 63: “wherein the second cable terminates only at the substrate and is not connected to the second contact of the second connector (paragraph 63 teaches a cable between the first connector and the substrate)”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Wanha with the invention of Goel as modified by Wanha in order to enable high-speed transmission without loss (Wanha, paragraph 63).
With regard to claim 18, Goel as modified by Wanha teaches: “The cable assembly of claim 16”, as shown above.
Wanha also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7A and taught in paragraph 64: “wherein the first and the second cables 68 are twinaxial cables”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Wanha with the invention of Goel as modified by Wanha in order to enable high-speed transmission without loss (Wanha, paragraph 63).
With regard to claim 19, Goel as modified by Wanha teaches: “The cable assembly of claim 16”, as shown above.
Wanha does not specifically teach: “further comprising third and fourth cables that are physically connected to the first connector and the substrate”. However, in paragraph 63, Wanha teaches multiple cables being connected to multiple areas of either the substrate or other devices. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have three cables connected to the substrate in order to provide more high-speed data with less loss to the substrate (Wanha, paragraph 63).
With regard to claim 20, Goel as modified by Wanha teaches: “The cable assembly of claim 19”, as shown above.
Wanha also teaches, as shown in figures 1-7A and taught in paragraph 63: “wherein the third and the fourth cables 68 are not connected to the second connector (paragraph 63 teaches the cables that are connected to the substrate 50 are connected only to the substrate and therefore not to the second connector)”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have three cables connected to the substrate in order to provide more high-speed data with less loss to the substrate (Wanha, paragraph 63).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel (2016/0234368) in view of Wanha et al. (2015/0079845) and Chou et al. (2010/0124831).
With regard to claim 13, Goel as modified by Wanha teaches: “The cable assembly of claim 1”, as shown above.
Neither Goel nor Wanha teach: “wherein the memory module is covered with heat-shrink tubing or covered by a sleeve”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Chou teaches, as shown in figure 1 and taught in paragraph 23: “wherein the memory module 10 is covered with heat-shrink tubing or covered by a sleeve 12”. 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 Chou with the invention of Goel as modified by Wanha in order to protect the memory device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
Prosecution Insights