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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/01/2025 has been entered.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga (US 2006/0110965 A1) in view of Nagae (US 11322874 B2).
Regarding claim 1: Koga (Figures 1-3) teaches an electrical connector for flat-type conductors to which a flat-type conductor extending in a forward-backward direction and dimensionally thick in an up-down direction is connected, the electrical connector comprising:
a housing (i.e. body of paragraph [0007]) that has formed therein a receiving space (i.e. under 10) open toward a rear (i.e. left of figure 1) for forward insertion of the flat-type conductor (i.e. flat flexible cable of paragraph [0007]),
multiple terminals (i.e. plurality of terminals is conventional as described in paragraph [0002]) that are arranged and retained in the housing such that a terminal array direction is a direction perpendicular to both the forward-backward direction and the up-down direction (i.e. as is described to be conventional in paragraph [0002]),
locking members (i.e. contact portion of paragraph [0039])) retained in the housing (i.e. as in figure 1), and
a movable member (i.e. 6) that is provided forwardly of the receiving space and is capable of moving between a closed position (i.e. figure 3) and an open position (i.e. figure 1) while pivoting about a pivotal axis (i.e. pivotal axis near 5 and 8) extending in the terminal array direction,
with extraction of the flat-type conductor being prevented when the movable member is in the closed position and extraction of the flat-type conductor being permitted when the movable member is in the open position (i.e. as understood from figures 3 and 1), wherein:
at least one of the terminals have shaft restricting portions (i.e. hook above 5) located above shaft body portions (i.e. 5 and 8),
the locking members have an upper arm portion (i.e. 1) that extends in the forward-backward direction upwardly of the receiving space, a mountable portion (i.e. 4) that is mounted to the housing downwardly of the upper arm portion, and a strut portion (i.e. 3 and 12) that extends upwardly from the mountable portion and is coupled to the upper arm portion,
the upper arm portion has a pressure-receiving arm portion (i.e. right of 12) that extends forwardly from a top end of the strut portion (i.e. 12), and a locking arm portion (i.e. left of 12) that extends rearwardly from the top end of the strut portion,
the locking arm portion has an engaging portion (i.e. 10) positioned so as to permit engagement from the rear with an engageable portion (i.e. received by 10) in the flat-type conductor when the movable member is in the closed position,
the pressure-receiving arm portion has a curved shape (i.e. shape of 9) extending in a crank-like configuration (i.e. 9 and 7 act as a crank) when viewed in the terminal array direction, with a front end portion (i.e. 7) positioned downwardly of other parts (i.e. 7 positioned downwardly from 10, 8, 6, etc) to form pressure-receiving portions (i.e. 9).
the movable member has the shaft body portions positioned so as to include the pivotal axis when viewed in the terminal array direction, and cam portions (i.e. 8) positioned above the pressure-receiving portions,
the cam portions have pressure-applying portions (i.e. tip of 8) that contact the pressure-receiving portions (i.e. as in figure 1),
the pressure-applying portions are located within bounds of the shaft body portions in the up-down direction (i.e. as in figure 1), and
the cam portions apply downward pressure to the pressure-receiving portions when the movable member moves from the closed position to the open position (i.e. as from figure 3 to figure 1).
but does not specifically teach,
the locking members are disposed outside an array range of the terminals in the terminal array direction,
However, Nagae (Figure 2A) teaches
the locking members (i.e. 4) are disposed outside an array range (i.e. array of terminals of Figure 2A) of the terminals in the terminal array direction (i.e. 4 are placed outside the array of 2)
Similarly, Hoshino (US 10008798 B2, Figure 6) also teaches locking members 2b outside arrays of 2a.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to place the locking members taught by Koga outside an array range of terminals as taught by Nagae (and similarly by Hoshino) because this is conventional in the art. See MPEP 2144-I
Regarding claim 2: Koga and Nagae teach the electrical connector for flat-type conductors according to claim 1, Koga (Figures 1-3) further teaches wherein
the locking members are disposed on opposite external sides of the terminal array range in the terminal array direction (i.e. as per the modification discussed in claim 1, Nagae figure 2A), at least some of the terminals among the multiple terminals have shaft restricting portions (i.e. above 5 in figure 1) that restrict movement of the shaft body portions of the movable member in a plane perpendicular to the terminal array direction, and
the shaft restricting portions are not in contact with the shaft body portions during at least a part of a process of movement of the movable member (i.e. as in figure 3).
Regarding claim 3: Koga and Nagae teach the electrical connector for flat-type conductors according to claim 1, Koga (Marked version of figure 3 below) further teaches wherein the mountable portion has an upper clamping portion (i.e. see figure below) and a lower clamping portion (i.e. see figure below) that are spaced apart from each other in the up-down direction and extend in the forward-backward direction (i.e. as in the figure below), with the locking members further comprising a projecting arm (i.e. see figure below) portion being positioned at a same height in the up-down direction as the lower clamping portion (i.e. as in the figure below) and extending forwardly from a front end of the lower clamping portion, and a coupling portion (i.e. between the upper and lower clamping portions) that couples front end portions of the upper clamping portion and the lower clamping portion (i.e. as in the figure below), and
wherein the upper clamping portion is resiliently displaceable (i.e. via 3) in the up-down direction and the upper clamping portion and lower clamping portion clamp a mounting portion of the housing in the up-down direction (i.e. as in figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
351
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4: Koga and Nagae teach the electrical connector for flat-type conductors according to claim 3, Koga further teaches wherein the upper clamping portion is resiliently displaced upward along with the locking arm portion and the strut portion when the cam portions apply downward pressure to the pressure- receiving portions (i.e. actuating 6 applies forces on 3 which applies a lifting force to the upper clamping portion to be anchored by the lower clamping portion).
Regarding claim 5: Koga and Nagae teach the electrical connector for flat-type conductors according to claim 1, Koga (Marked version of figure 3 above) further teaches wherein the locking members further comprise a projecting arm portion (i.e. see figure above) that extends forwardly from the mountable portion and projects into a movable member accommodating space (i.e. see figure above), with the projecting arm portion being positioned at a same height in the up-down direction as a lower clamping (i.e. see figure above) portion and extending forwardly from a front end of the lower clamping portion (i.e. as in the figure above), and the projecting arm portion has a front end portion formed as an anchor portion (i.e. front end of projecting arm) configured to be anchored to a mounting face of a circuit board (i.e. as the projecting arm is configured to be anchored to), wherein the anchor portion is adapted to be anchored to the mounting face with a bottom edge portion of the anchor portion (i.e. bottom edge portion of the front end of the projecting arm) using solder connections (i.e. as the bottom edge portion of the anchor portion is adapted to be anchored with).
Regarding claim 6: Koga and Nagae teach the electrical connector for flat-type conductors according to claim 1, Koga (Figure 3) further teaches wherein the pressure-receiving portions are positioned with their top edges in contact with the pressure-applying portions (i.e. as in figure 1).
Regarding claim 7: Koga and Nagae teach the electrical connector for flat-type conductors according to claim 1, Koga (Figure 1) further teaches wherein the pressure-receiving portions are located within bounds of the shaft body portions in the forward-backward and up-down directions (i.e. as in figure 1), and wherein the pressure-applying portions are located within bounds of the shaft body portions in the forward-backward direction (i.e. as in figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
a. Applicant argues that Koga and Nagae do not teach, “the pressure-receiving arm portion has a curved shape extending in a crank-like configuration when viewed in the terminal array direction, with a front end portion positioned downwardly of other parts to form a pressure-receiving portion.” Applicant further argues that Koga teaches a U-shape in contrast to the curved shape and crank-like configuration as required by the claim.
Examiner believes that the teachings of Koga have been misconstrued. Firstly, a U-shape would fit within the BRI of a, “curved shape,” because a “U” has a curved shape. Regardless, while the rear end of Koga’s beam structure may be understood to have a U-shape, the cited pressure-receiving arm portion which interacts with the cam and lever of the connector has a curved shape (7) and extends forwardly to act as a crank in operation of the connector. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any further definition or structural description of a, “crank-like configuration,” beyond its mention in paragraph [0048], appearance in the drawings, and use in the claims. That is, when interpreting “crank-like configuration” within its BRI, Koga’s pressure-receiving portions are certainly arranged and configured to act as a crank in operation of the connector. Therefore, the cited pressure-receiving arm portion has a curved shape extending in a crank-like configuration as required by the claim.
b. Applicant argues that the actuator with protruding portions taught by Koga and Nagae does not teach pressure-applying portions that are specifically located within bounds of the shaft body portions in the up-down direction and similarly in the forward-backward direction as in claims 1 and 7.
While bounds of the shaft body portions are claimed, there is no additional limitation or description within the specification teaching the extent of these bounds. That is, it is generally unknown where, or how close something must be to the shaft body portions to be within its bounds as claimed. Interpreted under its BRI, another component within the connector that directly interacts with or is located near the shaft body portions is interpreted as within the bounds. As such, Koga’s pressure-applying portions rotate with the shaft body portions, are located near the shaft body portions, and will therefore be within the bounds of the shaft body portion in the up-down direction. Similarly, the cited shaft body portion (5 and 8) act to hold almost the entire pressure-receiving portion (9) within its curved shape in the forward-backward direction, meeting the limitations of claims 1 and 7.
c. Applicant argues that Koga and Nagae do not teach “the cam portions apply downward pressure to the pressure-receiving portions when the movable member moves from the closed position to the open position.”
Figures 1-3 of Koga show the movable member moving from an open position to the closed position and the cam portions actuating the pressure-receiving portions during this action.
d. Applicant argues that the lever-type connector for locking a flat-type conductor by deflecting locking terminals with a cam of the lever taught by Koga and the lever-type connector for locking a flat-type conductor by deflecting locking terminals with a cam of the lever taught by Nagae are unrelated and would only be combined in hindsight.
Nagae is relied on for teaching a generic arrangement of lever-type connectors. Though not used for rejection, Hoshino was also cited as teaching this generic arrangement. The limitations of the claims taught by Nagae appear to be ubiquitous in the art and are properly motivated as such. Furthermore, neither the combined structure nor the motivation for combining structures under 35 U.S.C. 103 need be related to the problems or solutions applicant feels are pertinent. See MPEP 2144-I and 2144-IV.
Conclusion
5. 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 GREGORY MANGOT whose telephone number is 703-756-5737. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm ET.
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 Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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 addition 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.
/GREGORY L MANGOT/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834