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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action in response to a RCE filed 1/30/26 in which claims 1-5 and 8 were amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1, next to last line recites “substantially equidistance from” which appears to be a misstatement of “substantially equidistant from”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujitsu Takamisawa Component (JP 2001001372, already of record).
For claim 1, Fujitsu Takamisawa Component teaches a cavity mold for use in an injection molding process, the cavity mold comprising at least one elongated cavity having a length L for forming by injection molding a connector housing having two opposed ends that is longer than it is wide (Figs 4a/b, 6 a/b & 7a/b), and injection channels with a double gating system which includes two injection gates for each of the at least one elongated cavity, wherein the two injection gates are located at opposite sides of the elongated cavity at a position near the middle of the length L of the cavity, such that each of the two injection gates is located at a position that is substantially equidistant from the two opposed ends of the connector housing (Abstract, Figs 4a/b, 6 a/b & 7a/b). Examiner notes that although the gating system cited comprises more than two gates, it also comprises two gates located at the middle of the cavity with respect to the length which are opposite to each other.
Though Fujitsu Takamisawa Component does not teach the cavity mold has at least 4 elongated cavities for forming a connector housing by injection molding, and two injection gates for each of the cavities, the two injection gates located at opposite sides of each of the cavities, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize these limitations as nothing more than the duplication of parts for a multiple effect and could seek the benefit of additional cavities to provide for more product capacity. Please see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960) and MPEP 2144.04 VI(B) for further details.
Also, though Fujitsu Takamisawa Component does not teach the two injection gates are located at opposite sides of each elongated cavity at a position within a distance of 0.15*L or less from the middle of the length L of each elongated cavity, where 0*L is the middle of the length L of each cavity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the two injection gates be located at opposite sides of each elongated cavity at a position within a distance of 0.15*L or less from the middle of the length L of each elongated cavity, where 0*L is the middle of the length L of each cavity since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to perform routine experimentation for the purpose of optimizing the gate locations. Please see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 for further details.
Finally, though Fujitsu Takamisawa Component does not explicitly teach forming a long factor connector housing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a long form factor connector housing since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. Further, one would have been motivated to select a long form factor for the purpose of shaping the connector housing to the needs of their application. Please see MPEP 2144.04 (IV) and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) for further details.
For claim 2, it is well known to have hot runners in connection to the injection gates of the cavity mold.
For claim 4, though Fujitsu Takamisawa Component does not teach the cavity mold has at least 8 to 32 elongated cavities each having a length L for forming a connector housing by injection molding, and two injection gates for each of the cavities which are located at opposite sides of each elongated cavity at a position within a distance of 0.15*L or less from the middle of the length L of each elongated cavity, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize these limitations as nothing more than the duplication of parts for a multiple effect and could seek the benefit of additional cavities to provide for more product capacity. Please see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960) and MPEP 2144.04 VI(B) for further details.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujitsu Takamisawa Component (JP 2001001372, already of record) in view of DSM presents: For Tii, the best fit for DDR4 housings (DSM, May 17, 2006, already of record).
Fujitsu Takamisawa Component teaches the invention as discussed above.
Though Fujitsu Takamisawa Component does not teach the cavity mold comprises one or more cavities which form a DDR5 connector housing, DSM presents: For Tii, the best fit for DDR4 housings teaches DDR4 connector double-gate molding (Fig.) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cavity or the cavities form a DDR5 connector housing since DDR5 is the known successor to DDR4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/30/26 were fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the applied references of record are completely silent on the problem of how to provide a cavity mold for injection molding a connector housing having a long form factor which maintains dimensional integrity throughout the injection molding process, as well as when such a connector housing is exposed to a temperature cycle, such as the one applied during surface mounting the connector on to other parts via reflow soldering.
Examiner, however, points out that structural features of the cavity mold beyond those of the applied references of record for maintaining dimensional integrity throughout the injection molding process, as well as when such a connector housing is exposed to a temperature cycle, such as the one applied during surface mounting the connector on to other parts via reflow soldering are not found to be claimed.
Applicant's other arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-7007. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached on 571-270-5516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES SANDERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743