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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 20-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitations "ground" and “grounds” in lines 9 and 10, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For prior art analysis, it will be assumed that the first electrical shield and a second electrical shield of the second electrical connector are being referred to here, as that is what appears to be in the figures 1B-1D. Claim 21 includes all the limitations of claim 20 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "grounds" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For prior art analysis, it will be assumed that the first electrical shield and a second electrical shield of the second electrical connector are being referred to here, as that is what appears to be in the figures 1B-1D.
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, 7-14, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbone et al. (10,109,958) and Nolting et al. (2019/0312387).
With regard to claim 1, Carbone teaches, as shown in figures 8-10: “An electrical connector system comprising: at least one first electrical signal conductor 132 surrounded on at least three sides by a first electrical shield (172A and 172B); at least one second electrical signal conductor 160 surrounded on at least three sides by a second electrical shield (174A and 174B)”.
Carbone does not teach: “and a third electrical shield that is configured to receive each of the first and second electrical shields such that the third electrical shield surrounds at least three sides of the first electrical shield and at least three sides of the second electrical shield”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Nolting teaches, as shown in figure 6: “and a third electrical shield 30 that is configured to receive each of the first 10 and second 20 electrical shields such that the third electrical shield 30 surrounds at least three sides of the first electrical shield 10 and at least three sides of the second electrical shield 20”. 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 Nolting with the invention of Carbone in order to provide shielding and electrical contact between the first and second electrical shields (Nolting, paragraph 64).
With regard to claim 2, Carbone as modified by Nolting teaches: “The electrical connector system of claim 1”, as shown above.
Carbone also teaches, as shown in figures 8-11: “wherein the first electrical signal conductor 132 comprises a first conductor mating portion 138 and a first conductor mounting portion 144”.
With regard to claim 3, Carbone as modified by Nolting teaches: “The electrical connector system of claim 2”, as shown above.
Carbone also teaches, as shown in figures 7-11: “further comprising a first electrical connector 130 having a first connector housing 148 and 152, wherein the first electrical signal conductor 132 is supported by the first connector housing, a second electrical connector 128 having a second connector housing 170, wherein the second electrical signal conductor 160 is supported by the second connector housing 170, the second electrical signal conductor 160 comprises a second conductor mating portion 164 and a second conductor mounting portion 144, and the first conductor mating portion 138 and the second conductor mating portion 164 define a mating interface, such that when the first 130 and second 128 electrical connectors are mated with each other, the first 132 and second 160 electrical signal conductors physically touch and electrically connect to each other”.
With regard to claim 4, Carbone as modified by Nolting teaches: “The electrical connector system of claim 1”, as shown above.
Carbone also teaches, as shown in figures 8-11: “wherein the first electrical shield comprises a first shield mounting portion (lower-left end of the first electrical shield in figure 8) and a first shield mating portion (upper-right end of the first electrical shield in figure 8)”.
With regard to claim 5, Carbone as modified by Nolting teaches: “The electrical connector system of claim 4”, as shown above.
Carbone also teaches, as shown in figures 8-11: “wherein the second electrical shield comprises a second shield mounting portion (upper-right end of the second electrical shield in figure 8) and a second shield mating portion (lower-left end of the second electrical shield in figure 8)”.
With regard to claim 7, Carbone as modified by Nolting teaches: “The electrical connector system of claim 1”, as shown above.
Carbone also teaches, as shown in figures 8-11: “wherein the first electrical shield has a first tubular shape”.
With regard to claim 8, Carbone as modified by Nolting teaches: “The electrical connector system of claim 7”, as shown above.
Carbone also teaches, as shown in figures 8-11: “wherein the second electrical shield has a second tubular shape”.
With regard to claim 9, Carbone as modified by Nolting teaches: “The electrical connector system of claim 8”, as shown above.
Nolting also teaches, as shown in figure 6: “wherein the third electrical shield 30 has a third tubular shape”. 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 Nolting with the invention of Carbone as modified by Nolting in order to provide shielding and electrical contact between the first and second electrical shields (Nolting, paragraph 64).
With regard to claim 10, Carbone as modified by Nolting teaches: “The electrical connector system of claim 1”, as shown above.
Nolting also teaches, as shown in figure 6: “wherein the third electrical shield 30 comprises a first, third shield mating portion (right end of 30 in figure 6) and a second, third shield mating portion (left end of 30 in figure 6)”. 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 Nolting with the invention of Carbone as modified by Nolting in order to provide shielding and electrical contact between the first and second electrical shields (Nolting, paragraph 64).
With regard to claim 11, Carbone as modified by Nolting teaches: “The electrical connector system of claim 1”, as shown above.
Nolting also teaches, as shown in figure 6: “wherein the third electrical shield 30 receives the first electrical shield 10 and the second electrical shield 20”. 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 Nolting with the invention of Carbone as modified by Nolting in order to provide shielding and electrical contact between the first and second electrical shields (Nolting, paragraph 64).
With regard to claim 12, Carbone as modified by Nolting teaches: “The electrical connector system of claim 1”, as shown above.
Nolting also teaches, as shown in figure 6: “wherein the first electrical signal conductor 11 comprises a first length that is surrounded by a combination of the first electrical shield 10 and the third electrical shield 30”. 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 Nolting with the invention of Carbone as modified by Nolting in order to provide shielding and electrical contact between the first and second electrical shields (Nolting, paragraph 64).
With regard to claim 13, Carbone as modified by Nolting teaches: “The electrical connector system of claim 12”, as shown above.
Nolting also teaches, as shown in figure 6: “wherein the second electrical signal conductor 21 comprises a second length that is surrounded by a combination of the second electrical shield 20 and the third electrical shield 30”. 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 Nolting with the invention of Carbone as modified by Nolting in order to provide shielding and electrical contact between the first and second electrical shields (Nolting, paragraph 64).
With regard to claim 14 Carbone as modified by Nolting teaches: “The electrical connector system of claim 1”, as shown above.
Nolting also teaches, as shown in figure 6: “further comprising a housing 33 that at least partially surrounds the first electrical shield 10 and the third electrical shield 30”. 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 Nolting with the invention of Carbone as modified by Nolting in order to provide extra protection (Nolting, paragraph 65).
With regard to claim 25, Carbone teaches, as shown in figures 8-10: “An electrical connector 128 comprising at least one first electrical signal conductor 102 surrounded on at least three sides by a first electrical shield (174A and 174B), wherein the electrical connector 128 is configured to mate with a second electrical connector 130”.
Carbone does not teach: “such that an auxiliary electrical shield contacts both the first electrical shield and a second electrical shield of the second electrical connector”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Nolting teaches, as shown in figure 6: “such that an auxiliary electrical shield 30 contacts both the first electrical shield 10 and a second electrical shield 20 of the second electrical connector 2”. 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 Nolting with the invention of Carbone in order to provide shielding and electrical contact between the first and second electrical shields (Nolting, paragraph 64).
With regard to claim 26, Carbone as modified by Nolting teaches: “The electrical connector of claim 25”, as shown above.
Nolting also teaches, as shown in figure 6: “wherein the auxiliary electrical shield 30 receives the first electrical shield 10 and the second electrical shield 20”. 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 Nolting with the invention of Carbone as modified by Nolting in order to provide shielding and electrical contact between the first and second electrical shields (Nolting, paragraph 64).
With regard to claim 27, Carbone as modified by Nolting teaches: “The electrical connector of claim 25”, as shown above.
Nolting also teaches, as shown in figure 6: “wherein the auxiliary electrical shield 30 is attached to the first electrical shield 10”. 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 Nolting with the invention of Carbone as modified by Nolting in order to provide shielding and electrical contact between the first and second electrical shields (Nolting, paragraph 64).
With regard to claim 28 Carbone as modified by Nolting teaches: “The electrical connector of claim 25”, as shown above.
Neither Carbone nor Nolting teach: “wherein the auxiliary electrical shield and the first electrical shield define a unitary structure”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to form the auxiliary electrical shield and the first electrical shield as a unitary structure since doing so would only be forming the auxiliary and first electrical shields as an integrated structure and would simplify construction by requiring less parts to assemble. Also, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbone et al. (10,109,958), Nolting et al. (2019/0312387), and Stokoe et al. (EP1411594A2).
With regard to claim 15, Carbone as modified by Nolting teaches: “The electrical connector system of claim 1”, as shown above.
Neither Carbone nor Nolting teach: “further comprising a solder ball attached to the first electrical signal conductor, wherein the solder ball, when reflowed onto a substrate, has a substantially cylindrical cross-sectional shape”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Stokoe teaches, as taught in paragraphs 13-14 and 34-35 and shown in figures 5-6 and 17: “further comprising a solder ball (solder ball taught in paragraphs 13-14 and 35) attached to the first electrical signal conductor 62, wherein the solder ball, when reflowed onto a substrate 16, has a substantially cylindrical cross-sectional shape (taught in paragraph 35)”. 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 Stokoe with the invention of Carbone as modified by Nolting in order to be able to use the connector to connect to a substrate (Stokoe, paragraphs 34-35).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbone et al. (10,109,958) and Nolting et al. (2019/0312387) and Buck et al. (5,709,569).
With regard to claim 16, Carbone as modified by Nolting teaches: “The electrical connector system of claim 1”, as shown above.
Neither Carbone nor Nolting teach: “wherein the first electrical shield and the second electrical shield are butt coupled at one of their respective ends”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Buck teaches, as shown in figures 1-4 and taught in column 2 lines 50-64: “wherein the first electrical shield 62 and the second electrical shield 10 are butt coupled at one of their respective ends”. 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 Buck with the invention of Carbone as modified by Nolting in order to provide more grounding (Buck, column 2 lines 50-64).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbone et al. (10,109,958) and Zhu et al. (12,184,024).
With regard to claim 20, Carbone teaches as shown in figures 8-11: “A first electrical… connector 128 comprising: a first connector housing 148; at least one first electrical signal conductor 132 supported by the first connector housing 148, wherein the at least one first signal conductor 132 has a mounting end 144… and a first electrical shield 174 that receives the first connector housing 148 and surrounds at least three sides of the at least one first electrical signal conductor 132, wherein the first electrical… connector 128 is configured to mate with a second electrical… connector 130 along a longitudinal direction (lower-left to upper-right in figure 8)”.
Carbone also teaches the external conductor outer shield conductors 174 and 172 being grounded (Carbone, column 10 lines 20-67).
Carbone does not teach the connection of the first and second electrical connector being such that no grounds of the first electrical… connector overlap with any ground of the second electrical… connector in a plane that is oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal direction”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Zhu teaches, as shown in figures 1-6 and taught in claim 18, a connection of the first 1 and second 20 electrical connector being such that no external conductor 100 of the first electrical… connector 1 overlap with any external conductor 21 of the second electrical… connector 20 in a plane (running up-and-down in figure 2) that is oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (left-to-right in figure 6)”. 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 Zhu with the invention of Carbone in order to easily make contact between external conductors of two connectors (Zhu, column 3 lines 18-23).
Neither Carbone nor Zhu teach the first and second connectors being board connectors or the mounting end of the at least one first electrical signal conductor is configured to be mounted to a printed circuit board”. However, this is a statement of intended use of the connectors. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to make the first and second connectors board connectors with the mounting portion of the at least one first electrical signal conductor mounted to a circuit board, since doing so is well known in the art (see Robin, figure 1, connectors 30 and 104 connecting between circuit boards 2 and 3) in order to be able to provide a shielded connection between circuit boards. Also, 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 limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (1987).
With regard to claim 21, Carbone as modified by Zhu teaches: “The first electrical connector of claim 20”, as shown above.
Neither Carbone nor Zhu teach: “further configured to mate with the second electrical… connector such that no grounds of the first electrical… connector touch any grounds of the second electrical… connector”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to change the size of the first electrical shield so that the first electrical shield does not touch the second electrical shield in order to save material. Also, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 17 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 9/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claims 20 and 21, the Applicant argues that the terms “ground” and “grounds” do not need antecedent basis since the shields are the grounds and are described in the Specification. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since electrical shields are not inherently grounded and therefor do not provide antecedent basis for ground or grounds on their own. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the grounding of the electrical shields) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With regard to the 103 rejection of claim 1, the Applicant argues that the cited electrical signal conductors were signal wires of the cables and are therefore not signal conductors. This is inconsistent with the language of the claim, since the claims only require signal conductors. In response to the amendments, however, the rejection has been modified to map the signal conductors as 132 and 160 in order to better address the amendments to the claims. With regard to the third electrical shield configured to receive each of the first and second electrical shields, the Applicant argues that the third electrical shield cited in Nolting is formed around the cited first and second electrical shields and so does not receive the first and second electrical shields. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since the figures show the first and second electrical shields received in the third electrical shield. The Applicant further argues that it would not have been obvious to combine Nolting with the invention of Carbone because the shields of Carbone are already in contact. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since the third electrical shield would still provide the benefits cited of providing more shielding and electrical contact between the first and second electrical shields. With regard to claim 25, the Applicant argues that Carbone as modified by Nolting does not teach “wherein the first electrical board connector is configured to mate with a second electrical board connector along a longitudinal direction, such that no grounds of the first electrical connector overlap with any ground of the second electrical board connector in a plane that is oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal direction”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since Nolting teaches the auxiliary electrical shield contacting both the first and second electrical shields when the first and second electrical connectors are mated and that this would not be the case if the electrical connectors were not mated. With regard to claim 20, the Applicant argues that since a board connector is being claimed in amended claim 20, the cited references do not render obvious claim 20 and would change the operation of Carbone. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since using connectors with boards or cables are obvious modifications and the modification of Carbone by Zhu would provide the benefit taught by Zhu and an electrical connection with shielding would still be provided.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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