DETAILED ACTION
The previous non-final office action has been withdrawn. A new non-final office action is followed.
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 § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Kaneko et al. (US 2005/0070139).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Kaneko et al. disclose a printed circuit board corner connector (1, Fig. 5) which is configured to connect a first printed circuit board (B), the printed circuit board corner connector (1) comprising a substantially flat contact body (5) from which a first connection end (6) for connecting to the first printed circuit board extends and wherein two soldering pins (4a) protrude from a lateral surface of the contact body, wherein depressions are provided on an another lateral surface located opposite to the lateral surface in positions corresponding to the soldering pins (Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
165
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kaneko et al. substantially disclosed the claimed invention except the pins are configured to form a soldered connection to the second printed circuit board.
This feature is seen to be an inherent teaching since the pins has the exact structural features (two pins formed by depressing one side and protruding on the other). It is inherently capable of being soldered to a Printed Circuit Board, even if the reference's original intent was press-fitting.
Kaneko’s pins had the exact structural features. The recitation of “solder to a printed circuit board” is an intended use or statement of function rather than a structural limitation. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, Kaneko et al. discloses the soldering pins integrally protrude from a central region of the flat contact body.
Regarding claim 3, Kaneko et al. discloses the flat contact body has a substantially rectangular basic shape.
Regarding claim 5, Kaneko et al. discloses the soldering pins protrude from a central region of the flat contact body in the manner of a crater and form a substantially cylindrical or tapered casing surface.
Regarding claim 6, Kaneko et al. discloses the soldering pins are produced using a pressing process, a stamping process, or a deep-drawing process.
Regarding claim 8, Kaneko et al. disclose the first connection end is formed as a press-in connector consisting of two legs extending next to one another, which legs extend toward one another on end-face ends thereof or are integrally connected to on another at the end-face ends.
Regarding claim 15, Kaneko et al. discloses the two soldering pins are configured as soldering pads.
Regarding claim 17, Kaneko et al. disclose the flat contact body extends in a plane, and wherein the first connection end extends away from the flat contact body in the plane.
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 4, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. (US 2005/0070139).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Kaneko et al. substantially disclosed the claimed invention except the shapes of the flat contact body has a substantially rectangular shape, wherein lateral overhangs or widenings, having a side wall with a somewhat cylindrical shape, and preferably with rounded corners.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to change the Kaneko et al.’s contact body to the claimed shaped, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Kaneko et al. substantially disclosed the claimed invention excep the shape of the end face of the soldering pins is substantially flat and the two end-face surfaces lie in a common parallel plane with respect to the lateral surface of the contact body.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to change the Kaneko et al.’s contact body to the claimed shaped, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims and 9-13, 16 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument that “Kaneko does not teach or suggest a printed circuit board corner connector configured to connect a first printed circuit board to a second printed circuit board” and “Kaneko does not disclose soldering pins configured to form a soldered connection to the second printed circuit board”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant invention is the flat contact body connecting to the first and the second printed circuit board. Kaneko disclosed the flat contact body connecting to a printed circuit board and a connector housing.
Kaneko’s flat contact body has the same structure as claimed without the intend to solder it to the second printed circuit board. The patentability of an apparatus claim rests on its structural limitation, not its intended use or functional capabilities. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Kaneko’s flat contact body is entirely capable of being solder to a second printed circuit board should one choose to do so. Therefore, as the structure element of the claimed flat contact body are fully met by Kaneko.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TRUC T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2011. The examiner can normally be reached monday-friday (7-4).
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, Christopher M. Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/TRUC T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights