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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the two outermost contacts are connected to a shield of the connector body, as claimed in claims 25 and 26 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “two outermost contacts of the electrical contacts are connected to ground via the two outermost tines while the connector is plugged into the SPE jack”, “two outermost tines, of the corresponding tines, are connected to a grounding structure within the SPE outlet”, and “two outermost contacts that connect to ground via the two outermost tines while the connector is plugged into the SPE jack” in claims 1, 9, and , 18 since no internal grounding structure within the SPE outlet is disclosed. The only similar disclosed feature is grounding the outer conductors of the SPE jack and the connector by means of a grounded shield of a cable connected to the connector.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 5-7, 9-12, 14, 16, 19, 21-23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkinson et al. (7,906,730) in view of Kondo et al. (8,342,863).
With regard to claim 1, Atkinson teaches, as shown in figures 1-3(a) and taught in column 4 lines 7-19: “A connector 10, comprising: a… connector body 100; and electrical contacts 300 mounted in the… connector body and configured to contact corresponding tines (contacts of mating connector described in column 4 lines 12-15) within a… jack (mating connector described in column 4 lines 12-15) while the connector is plugged into the… jack, wherein two middle contacts 304 and 306, of the electrical contacts 300, positioned between the two outermost contacts are configured to pass a data signal between the SPE jack and a cable 20 terminated by the connector 10”.
Atkinson does not teach: “wherein two outmost tines, of the corresponding tines, are connected to a grounding structure within the… jack, and two outermost contacts of the electrical contacts are connected to ground via the two outermost tines while the connector is plugged into the… jack”. However, Atkinson does teach a grounding structure 200 connected to the outermost electrical contacts 302 and 314 and the corresponding tines are connected to ground through the outermost electrical contacts. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to reverse the parts of the invention so the outermost tines are connected to a ground structure and the outermost electrical contacts are grounded through the outmost tines in order to provide grounding though the jack. Also, it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
Atkinson also does not specifically teach the connector being a four position four conductor (4P4C) or the jack being a single pair ethernet (SPE). However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to implement the design of Atkinson in a 4P4C connector in order to prevent resonances between the ground pins (Atkinson, column 5 lines 61-66).
Atkinson also does not teach: “wherein a first distance between the two inner contacts is different than a second distance between one of the outermost contacts and an adjacent one of the at least two middle contacts”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Kondo teaches, as shown in figures 1-9B: “wherein a first distance W1 between the two inner contacts SC is different than a second distance W2 between one of the outermost contacts GC and an adjacent one of the at least two middle contacts SC”. 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 Kondo with the invention of Atkinson in order to prevent impedance mismatch (Kondo, column 9 line 63 - column 10 line 28).
With regard to claim 5, Atkinson as modified by Kondo teaches: “The connector of claim 1”, as shown above.
Kondo also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9B and taught in column 9 line 63 - column 10 line 28: “wherein the first distance W1 and the second distance W2 yield a matched impedance or a substantially matched impedance”. 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 Kondo with the invention of Atkinson in order to prevent impedance mismatch (Kondo, column 9 line 63 - column 10 line 28). Kondo does not specifically mention the connector connecting with a cable, however, Kondo teaches in column 9 line 63 - column 10 line 28) impedance matching during transmission through the connector 1. Therefore, combining these features of Kondo with the invention of Atkinson would yield a connector that provided a matched impedance with the cable.
With regard to claim 6, Atkinson as modified by Kondo teaches: “The connector of claim 1”, as shown above.
Kondo also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9B: “wherein the first distance W1 is smaller than the second distance W2”. 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 Kondo with the invention of Atkinson in order to prevent impedance mismatch (Kondo, column 9 line 63 - column 10 line 28).
With regard to claim 7, Atkinson as modified by Kondo teaches: “The connector of claim 1”, as shown above.
Atkinson as modified also teaches, as shown in figures 1-3(a) and taught in column 6 line 56 - column 8 line 53: “wherein while the connector 10 is plugged into the SPE jack, the two outermost contacts create a path to ground that suppresses at least a portion of alien crosstalk between the connector 10 and an adjacent or proximate connector (as taught in column 6 line 56 - column 8 line 53, the configuration reduces crosstalk)”.
With regard to claim 9, Atkinson teaches, as shown in figures 1-3(a) and taught in column 4 lines 7-19: “A connector 10, comprising: a… connector body 100; and electrical contacts 300 mounted in the… connector body 100 and configured to contact corresponding tines (contacts of mating connector described in column 4 lines 12-15) within a… outlet (mating connector described in column 4 lines 12-15) while the connector 10 is plugged into the… outlet, wherein the electrical contacts comprise two outermost contacts 302 and 314 and two middle contacts 304 and 306 positioned between the two outermost contacts… two outermost tines, of the corresponding tines are configured to contact the two outermost contacts while the connector 10 is plugged into the… outlet… wherein at least two middle contacts 304 and 306 are configured to pass a data signal between the SPE jack and a cable 20 terminated by the connector 10”.
Atkinson does not teach the two outermost “are connected to a grounding structure within the… outlet”. However, Atkinson does teach a grounding structure 200 connected to the outermost electrical contacts 302 and 314 and the corresponding tines are connected to ground through the outermost electrical contacts. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to reverse the parts of the invention so the outermost tines are connected to a ground structure in order to provide grounding though the jack. Also, it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
Atkinson also does not specifically teach the connector being a four position four conductor (4P4C) or the jack being a single pair ethernet (SPE). However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to implement the design of Atkinson in a 4P4C connector in order to prevent resonances between the ground pins (Atkinson, column 5 lines 61-66).
Atkinson does not teach: “and a first distance between the two middle contacts is different than a second distance between one of the outermost contacts and an adjacent one of the two middle contacts”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Kondo teaches, as shown in figures 1-9B: “and a first distance W1 between the two middle contacts SC is different than a second distance W2 between one of the outermost contacts GC and an adjacent one of the two middle contacts SC”. 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 Kondo with the invention of Atkinson in order to prevent impedance mismatch (Kondo, column 9 line 63 - column 10 line 28).
With regard to claim 10, Atkinson as modified by Kondo teaches: “The connector of claim 9”, as shown above.
Kondo also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9B and taught in column 9 line 63 - column 10 line 28: “wherein the first distance W1 and the second distance W2 yield a signal-to-signal impedance of the connector 10 that substantially matches a signal-to-signal impedance”. 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 Kondo with the invention of Atkinson in order to prevent impedance mismatch (Kondo, column 9 line 63 - column 10 line 28). Kondo does not specifically mention the connector connecting with a cable, however, Kondo teaches in column 9 line 63 - column 10 line 28) impedance matching during transmission through the connector 1. Therefore, combining these features of Kondo with the invention of Atkinson would yield a connector that provided a matched impedance with the cable.
With regard to claim 11, Atkinson as modified by Kondo teaches: “The connector of claim 9”, as shown above.
Kondo also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9B and taught in column 9 line 63 - column 10 line 28: “wherein the first distance W1 and the second distance W2 yield a signal-to-ground impedance of the connector 10 that substantially matches a signal-to-ground impedance”. 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 Kondo with the invention of Atkinson in order to prevent impedance mismatch (Kondo, column 9 line 63 - column 10 line 28). Kondo does not specifically mention the connector connecting with a cable, however, Kondo teaches in column 9 line 63 - column 10 line 28) impedance matching during transmission through the connector 1. Therefore, combining these features of Kondo with the invention of Atkinson would yield a connector that provided a matched impedance with the cable.
With regard to claim 12, Atkinson as modified by Kondo teaches: “The connector of claim 9”, as shown above.
Kondo also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9B: “wherein the first distance W1 is smaller than the second distance W2”. 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 Kondo with the invention of Atkinson in order to prevent impedance mismatch (Kondo, column 9 line 63 - column 10 line 28).
With regard to claim 14, Atkinson as modified by Kondo teaches: “The connector of claim 9”, as shown above.
Atkinson as modified above also teaches, as shown in figures 1-3(a) and taught in column 4 lines 7-19: “wherein the two outermost contacts are grounded while the connector 10 is plugged into the SPE outlet”.
With regard to claim 16, Atkinson as modified by Kondo teaches: “The connector of claim 14”, as shown above.
Atkinson as modified above also teaches, as shown in figures 1-3(a) and taught in column 6 line 56 - column 8 line 53: “wherein while the connector 10 is plugged into the SPE outlet, the two outermost contacts create a path to ground via the two outermost tines that suppresses at least a portion of alien crosstalk between the connector 10 and an adjacent or proximate connector (as taught in column 6 line 56 - column 8 line 53, the configuration reduces crosstalk)”.
With regard to claim 18, Atkinson teaches, as shown in figures 1-3(a) and taught in column 4 lines 7-19: “A connector system, comprising: a… jack (mating connector described in column 4 lines 12-15) comprising a row of four tines (contacts of mating connector described in column 4 lines 12-15)… and a connector 10 comprising: a… connector body 100; and a row of four electrical contacts 300 mounted in the… connector body 100, wherein the row of four electrical contacts 300 comprises: two outermost contacts 302 and 314… and two signal contacts 304 and 306 between the two outermost contacts”.
Atkinson does not teach: “wherein two outermost tines of the four tines are connected to a grounding structure within the… jack… that connect to ground via the two outermost tines while the connector is plugged into the… jack”. However, Atkinson does teach a grounding structure 200 connected to the outermost electrical contacts 302 and 314 and the corresponding tines are connected to ground through the outermost electrical contacts. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to reverse the parts of the invention so the outermost tines are connected to a ground structure and the outermost electrical contacts are grounded through the outmost tines in order to provide grounding though the jack. Also, it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
Atkinson also does not specifically teach the connector being a four position four conductor (4P4C) or the jack being a single pair ethernet (SPE). However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to implement the design of Atkinson in a 4P4C connector in order to prevent resonances between the ground pins (Atkinson, column 5 lines 61-66).
Atkinson does not teach: “wherein a first distance between the two signal contacts is different than a second distance between one of the outermost contacts and an adjacent one of the two signal contacts”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Kondo teaches, as shown in figures 1-9B: “wherein a first distance W1 between the two inner contacts SC is different than a second distance W2 between one of the outermost contacts GC and an adjacent one of the at least two middle contacts SC”. 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 Kondo with the invention of Atkinson in order to prevent impedance mismatch (Kondo, column 9 line 63 - column 10 line 28).
With regard to claim 19, Atkinson as modified by Kondo teaches: “The connector of claim 18”, as shown above.
Atkinson also teaches, as shown in figures 1-3(a): “wherein the two outermost contacts are at least one of connected together (through structure 200) inside the connector body or connected to a shield 200 of the… connector body 100”.
With regard to claim 21, Atkinson as modified by Kondo teaches: “The connector of claim 18”, as shown above.
Kondo also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9B and taught in column 9 line 63 - column 10 line 28: “wherein the first distance W1 and the second distance W2 yield a signal-to-signal impedance of the connector that substantially matches a signal-to-signal impedance of a cable terminated by the connector”. 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 Kondo with the invention of Atkinson as modified by Kondo in order to prevent impedance mismatch (Kondo, column 9 line 63 - column 10 line 28). Kondo does not specifically mention the connector connecting with a cable, however, Kondo teaches in column 9 line 63 - column 10 line 28) impedance matching during transmission through the connector 1. Therefore, combining these features of Kondo with the invention of Atkinson would yield a connector that provided a matched impedance with the cable.
With regard to claim 22, Atkinson as modified by Kondo teaches: “The connector of claim 18”, as shown above.
Kondo also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9B: “wherein the first distance W1 is smaller than the second distance W2”. 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 Kondo with the invention of Atkinson in order to prevent impedance mismatch (Kondo, column 9 line 63 - column 10 line 28).
With regard to claim 23, Atkinson as modified by Kondo teaches: “The connector of claim 18”, as shown above.
Atkinson as modified also teaches, as shown in figures 1-3(a) and taught in column 6 line 56 - column 8 line 53: “wherein while the connector 10 is plugged into the SPE jack, the two outermost contacts create a path to ground that suppresses at least a portion of alien crosstalk between the connector 10 and an adjacent or proximate connector (as taught in column 6 line 56 - column 8 line 53, the configuration reduces crosstalk)”.
With regard to claim 25, Atkinson as modified by Kondo teaches: “The connector of claim 1”, as shown above.
Atkinson also teaches, as shown in figures 1-3(a): “wherein the two outermost contacts are at least one of connected together (through structure 200) inside the… connector body or connected to a shield 200 of the connector body 100”.
With regard to claim 26, Atkinson as modified by Kondo teaches: “The connector of claim 9”, as shown above.
Atkinson also teaches, as shown in figures 1-3(a): “wherein the two outermost contacts are at least one of connected together (through structure 200) inside the… connector body or connected to a shield 200 of the connector body 100”.
Claims 8, 17, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkinson et al. (7,906,730) in view of Kondo et al. (8,342,863) and Hardesty (3,860,316).
With regard to claim 8, Atkinson as modified by Kondo teaches: “The connector of claim 1”, as shown above.
Neither Atkinson nor Kondo teach: “wherein the connector is a single pair ethernet connector”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to omit the other differential pairs of Atkinson and change the number of pairs of signal conductors to one in order to provide the protections of Atkinson with different kinds of connectors. Further, it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184. Also, Hardesty, as shown in figures 1-7 teaches a single pair ethernet connector 24”. 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 Hardesty with the invention of Atkinson as modified by Kondo in order to provide the benefits of Atkinson in different types of connectors.
With regard to claim 17, Atkinson as modified by Kondo teaches: “The connector of claim 9”, as shown above.
Neither Atkinson nor Kondo teach: “wherein the connector is a single pair ethernet connector”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to omit the other differential pairs of Atkinson and change the number of pairs of signal conductors to one in order to provide the protections of Atkinson with different kinds of connectors. Further, it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184. Also, Hardesty, as shown in figures 1-7 teaches a single pair ethernet connector 24”. 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 Hardesty with the invention of Atkinson as modified by Kondo in order to provide the benefits of Atkinson in different types of connectors.
With regard to claim 24, Atkinson as modified by Kondo teaches: “The connector of claim 18”, as shown above.
Neither Atkinson nor Kondo teach: “wherein the connector is a single pair ethernet connector”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to omit the other differential pairs of Atkinson and change the number of pairs of signal conductors to one in order to provide the protections of Atkinson with different kinds of connectors. Further, it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184. Also, Hardesty, as shown in figures 1-7 teaches a single pair ethernet connector 24”. 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 Hardesty with the invention of Atkinson as modified by Kondo in order to provide the benefits of Atkinson in different types of connectors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 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). With regard to claims 1, 9, and 18, the Applicant argues that the features of the two outermost contacts that connect to ground via the two outermost tines while the connector is plugged into the SPE jack and a first distance between the two signal contacts is different than a second distance between one of the outermost contacts and an adjacent one of the two signal contacts are not taught by any of the references as being used in a 4P4C connector are not taught by any of the individual references, but are not applied to the combination as a whole. The Applicant further argues that it would not have been obvious to use those features in a 4P4C connector, since those connectors do not typically have those features. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since the advantages of each feature are known to a person having ordinary skill in the art and would have those advantages in the context of the 4P4C connector, and thus would be obvious to utilize in order to achieve those benefits. The Applicant further argues that the feature “the two outermost contacts are at least one of connected together inside the 4P4C connector body or connected to a shield of the 4P4C connector body. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since the advantages of connecting grounding contacts together are known and would therefore be obvious to use to obtain those advantages.
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