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 were received on 10/31/25. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 20 line 13, the phrase “the the” should read --the--. Claim 21 includes the limitations of claim 20 and is objected to for the same reasons. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 7 last line, the limitations “the substrate connecting part of the terminal being configure to be connected to a second connection pad”, is a new limitation not supported by the original disclosure. The Specification, in paragraph 162 teaches an inner side tail part 166b and the tail part 162 of the second terminal 161 connected to “the connection pad”, so the terminal has two contact points with the same connection pad. For prior art analysis, it will be assumed that “a second connection pad” is the same as the first connection pad in accordance with the Specification. Also, if there are two contact points with a contact pad by one terminal, the second inner side tail part would need to be claimed. Claims 8-11 include all the limitations of claim 7 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claim 2 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 2 recites the limitation "the inner wall” and “the inner wall part" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For prior art analysis, it will be assumed that claim 2 depends on a claim 13, which claims an inner wall and inner wall parts.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimomura et al. (2021/0218200).
With regard to claim 7, Shimomura teaches, as shown in figures 1-13: “A connector H1 that mates with a mating connector S1, comprising: a connector main body 6; a terminal 8P attached to the connector main body 6, the terminal 8P including a substrate connecting part 83 which is configured to be connected to a first connection pad provided on a surface of a circuit board 550; a high-frequency terminal 8T attached to the connector main body 6; a shield 5 surrounding an entire circumference of the connector main body 6; an inner side shield 7… with the connector main body 6 and extending in a width direction of the connector H1 between the terminal 8P and the high-frequency terminal 8T; and a substrate connecting part 710 of the inner side shield 7 is disposed at a position overlapping the substrate connecting part 83 of the terminal 8P as viewed from a longitudinal direction of the connector H1, the substrate connecting part 83 of the terminal being configured to be connected to a second connection pad provided on the surface of the circuit board 550”.
Shimomura does not teach the second inner side shield being integrally formed with the second connector main body. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrally form the second inner side shield and the second connector main body in order to hold the second inner side shield in place. 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).
With regard to claim 1, Shimomura teaches: “The connector according to claim 7”, as shown above.
Shimomura also teaches, as shown in figures 1-13: “wherein the terminal 4P has a substrate connecting part 83 which is visible from a mating surface side (shown in figure 7) of the connector S1; and further comprising an inner side shield 7 attached to the connector main body and extending in a width direction of the connector between the terminal and the high-frequency terminal, the inner side shield having a substrate connecting part (right end of 7 in figure 6) which is not visible from the mating surface side”.
With regard to claim 5, Shimomura teaches: “The connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Shimomura also teaches, as shown in figures 1-13: “wherein an upper surface (upper portion of 31) of the substrate connecting part 310 of the inner side shield 3 is covered with the connector main body 2, and a lower surface 310 of the substrate connecting part 3 of the inner side shield 3 is exposed”.
With regard to claim 8, Shimomura teaches: “The connector according to claim 7”, as shown above.
Shimomura also teaches, as shown in figures 1-13: “wherein the shield 5 includes an outer wall 51, an upper wall 52, and an outwardly extending flange part 55 connected to a lower end of the outer wall 51; the connector main body 6 includes a protruding end part (back and front ends of 6 in figure 5) disposed at both ends in the longitudinal direction (front-back direction) of the connector H1, and the upper wall 52 covering at least a portion of an upper surface of the protruding end part”.
With regard to claim 9, Shimomura teaches: “The connector according to claim 8”, as shown above.
Shimomura also teaches, as shown in figures 1-13: “wherein the outer wall 51 and flange part 55 are connected around the entire circumference of the connector main body 6”.
With regard to claim 12, Shimomura teaches, as shown in figures 1-13: “A connector pair comprising: a first connector S1 including a first connector main body 2, a first terminal 4P attached to the first connector main body 2, a first high-frequency terminal 4T attached to the first connector main body 2, a first shield 1 surrounding an entire circumference of the first connector main body 2, a first inner side shield 3 attached to the first connector main body 2 and extending in a width direction of the first connector S1 between the first terminal 4P and the first high-frequency terminal 4T; and a second connector H1 that mates with the first connector S1, the second connector H1 including a second connector main body 6, a second terminal 8P attached to the second connector main body 6, a second high-frequency terminal 8T attached to the second connector main body 6, a second shield 5 surrounding an entire circumference of the second connector main body 6, and a second inner side shield 7… with the second connector main body 6 and extending in a width direction of the second connector H1 between the second terminal 8P and the second high-frequency terminal 8T; and wherein when the first connector S1 and the second connector H1 are mated, the first shield 1 and the second shield 5 are in contact and electrically conducting, and the first inner side shield 3 and the second inner side shield 7 are in contact and electrically conducting”.
Shimomura does not teach the second inner side shield being integrally formed with the second connector main body. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrally form the second inner side shield and the second connector main body in order to hold the second inner side shield in place. 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).
Claims 2, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimomura et al. (2021/0218200) in view of Oh et al. (2023/0104947).
With regard to claim 2, Shimomura teaches: “The connector according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Shimomura also teaches, as shown in figures 1-13: “wherein the inner wall 13”.
Shimomura does not teach the inner wall “includes a curved part from which the inner wall parts extend”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Oh teaches, as shown in figures 14-15, the inner wall 231 “includes a curved part (formed between 233 and 231 in figure 15) from which the inner wall parts 231 extend”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Oh with the invention of Shimomura in order to increase the coupling force (Oh, paragraph 97).
With regard to claim 13, Shimomura teaches, as shown in figures 1-13: “A connector S1 that mates with a mating connector H1, comprising: a connector main body 2; a terminal 4P attached to the connector main body 2; a high-frequency terminal 4T attached to the connector main body 2; and a shield 1 surrounding an entire periphery of the connector main body 2, the shield 1 includes an outer wall 11, an inner wall 13, a coupling part 12… the inner wall 13 being substantially parallel to the outer wall 11 on an inner side of the outer wall 11, the coupling part couples 12 an upper end of the outer wall 11 and an upper end of the inner wall 13… the inner wall 13 defining a recess 10S having a periphery surrounded by the inner wall 13, the recess 10S being configured to accommodate the mating connector H1 therein, wherein the outer wall 11… continuous over the entire periphery of the connector main body 2”.
Shimomura does not teach the first shield comprising: “an outwardly extending flange portion… the outwardly extending flange portion connected to a lower end of the outer wall…
and the flange portion” continuous continues over the entire periphery of the first connector main body. However, Shimomura teaches, as shown in figures 1-13, the second connector H1 having a shield 5 comprising: “an outwardly extending flange portion 55… the outwardly extending flange portion 55 connected to a lower end of the outer wall 51… and the flange portion 55” continuous continues over the entire periphery of the connector main body 6. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to change the shape of the outer wall of the first connector to have an outwardly extending flange connected to the lower end of the outer wall in order to establish a more stable base for the first connect on the circuit board. Also, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Shimomura also does not teach: “and the inner wall is separated into inner wall parts by a plurality of spaced apart notches, wherein the inner wall parts are deformable in a direction approaching or separating from the outer wall”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Oh teaches, as shown in figures 14-15: “and the inner wall 231 is separated into inner wall parts 2311-2314 by a plurality of spaced apart notches, wherein the inner wall parts are deformable in a direction approaching or separating from the outer wall 232”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Oh with the invention of Shimomura in order to increase the coupling force (Oh, paragraph 97).
With regard to claim 15, Shimomura as modified by Oh teaches: “The first connector according to claim 13”, as shown above.
Shimomura also teaches, as shown in figures 1-13: “further comprising a shield plate 3 attached to the connector main body 2, wherein the shield plate 3 extends in a width direction of the connector S1 between the terminal 4P and the high frequency terminal 4T”.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimomura et al. (2021/0218200) in view of Oh et al. (2023/0104947) and Chen (2018/0175561).
With regard to claim 14, Shimomura as modified by Oh teaches: “The first connector according to claim 13”, as shown above.
Shimomura does not teach: “wherein a linear part and a curved part of the inner wall are separated by a slit part”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Chen teaches, as shown in figures 1-5: “wherein a linear part 3212 and a curved part (shown below) of the inner wall are separated by a slit part (located between the curved part and the linear part in figure 5)”.
PNG
media_image1.png
738
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimomura et al. (2021/0218200) in view of Ooi (2018/0198241).
With regard to claim 6, Shimomura teaches: “The connector according to claim 5”, as shown above.
Shimomura does not teach: “wherein the inner side shield has the same shape as the terminal”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Ooi teaches, as shown in figures 1-8 and taught in paragraph 81: “wherein the inner side shield 20a-7 (paragraph 81 teaches the terminal 20a-7 can provide ground shielding) has the same shape as the terminal 20a-3”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Ooi with the invention of Shimomura in order to reduce crosstalk (Ooi, paragraph 81).
With regard to claim 11, Shimomura teaches: “The connector according to claim 7”, as shown above.
Shimomura does not teach: “wherein the inner side shield has the same shape as the terminal”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Ooi teaches, as shown in figures 1-8 and taught in paragraph 81: “wherein the inner side shield 20a-7 (paragraph 81 teaches the terminal 20a-7 can provide ground shielding) has the same shape as the terminal 20a-3”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Ooi with the invention of Shimomura in order to reduce crosstalk (Ooi, paragraph 81).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimomura et al. (2021/0218200) in view of Kim (2022/0360023).
With regard to claim 10, Shimomura teaches: “The connector according to claim 8”, as shown above.
Shimomura does not teach: “wherein the inner side shield is connected to the upper wall, the high-frequency terminal is attached to the protruding end part, and the entire circumference of the high-frequency terminal is surrounded by the outer wall and the inner side shield”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Kim teaches, as shown in figures 5-15: “wherein the inner side shield (upper-right 912 and lower-left 921 in figure 14) is connected to the upper wall (top wall of 6 in figure 14), the high-frequency terminal 8 is attached to the protruding end part (upper-right and lower-left ends of 60 in figure 15), and the entire circumference of the high-frequency terminal 8 is surrounded by the outer wall 91 and 92 and the inner side shield”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Kim with the invention of Shimomura in order to improve the shielding of the connector (Kim, paragraph 193).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-19 and 22 are allowed.
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections(s) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 16, Shimomura teaches, as shown in figures 1-13: “A connector H1 that mates with a mating connector S1, comprising: a connector main body 6 having opposite first (front end in figure 7) and second (back end in figure 7) ends and including a bottom plate 61, a protrusion 62 protruding upwardly from an upper surface of the bottom plate 61 in a longitudinal direction (front-back direction in figure 7) of the connector main body 6, a first protruding end part 65 protruding upwardly from the upper surface of the bottom plate 61 at the first end of the connector main body 6 in the longitudinal direction, a second protruding end part (front and back portions of 6 surrounded by 62 in figure 5) protruding upwardly from the upper surface of the bottom plate 61 at the second end of the connector main body 6 in the longitudinal direction, wherein the protrusion 62 is narrower than the first and second protruding end parts, each protruding end part having an outer wall surface (front and back surfaces of 62 in figure 5) that faces an outer side in a longitudinal direction (front-back direction) of the connector H1, two sides (right and left surfaces of 62 in figure 5) in a width (left-right direction) direction of the connector H1, an upper surface (surface of 65 facing out of figure 7) that faces a mating surface side of the mating connector S1, and an inner wall surface (surface of 65 facing towards terminals 8P in figure 6) that faces an inner side in the longitudinal direction of the connector H1 and faces the protrusion 62; a terminal 8P attached to the protrusion 62; a high-frequency terminal 8T attached to the first protruding end part; and a shield 5 surrounding an entire periphery of the connector main body 6, the shield 5 includes an outer wall 51, an inner wall 54, an upper wall 52, and an outwardly extending flange portion 55, the upper wall 52 coupling an upper end of the outer wall 51 and an upper end of the inner wall 54, the outwardly extending flange portion 55 connected to a lower end of the outer wall 51, the upper wall 52 covers at least a part of the upper surface of each protruding end part, and the inner wall covers at least part of the inner wall surface of each protruding end part”.
Claim 17-19 and 22 include all the limitations of claim 16 and are therefore also allowable.
With regard to claim 20, Shimomura teaches, as shown in figures 1-13: “A connector pair comprising: a first connector S1 including a first connector main body 2, a first terminal 4P attached to the first connector main body 2, a first high-frequency terminal 4T attached to the first connector main body 2, and a first shield 1 surrounding an entire periphery of the first connector main body 2; the first shield 1 including an outer wall 11, an inner wall 13, a coupling part 12… the inner wall 13 is substantially parallel to the outer wall 11 on an inner side of the outer wall 11, the coupling part 13 couples an upper end of the outer wall 11 and an upper end of the inner wall 13… and the the inner wall 13 defining a recess 10S having a periphery surrounded by the inner wall 13, the inner wall 13 including a linear part (131 and 132 in figure 4) of a linear shape and a curved part (between 131 and 132 in figure 4) of a curved shape, a second connector H1 including a second connector main body 6, a second terminal 8P attached to the second connector main body 6, a second high-frequency terminal 8T attached to the second connector main body 6, and a second shield 5 and 7 surrounding an entire periphery of the second connector main body 6, the second connector H1 being fitted to the first connector S1, the second connector main body 6 having opposite first (front end in figure 7) and second (back end in figure 7) ends and including a bottom plate 61, a protrusion 62 protruding upwardly from an upper surface of the bottom plate 61 in a longitudinal direction (front-back direction) of the second connector main body, a first protruding end part (front portion of 6 surrounded by 62 in figure 5) protruding upwardly from the upper surface of the bottom plate 61 at the first end of the second connector main body 6 in the longitudinal direction, a second protruding end part (back portion of 6 surrounded by 62 in figure 5) protruding upwardly from the upper surface of the bottom plate 61 at the second end of the second connector main body 6 in the longitudinal direction, wherein the protrusion 62 is narrower than the protruding end parts, each protruding end part having an outer wall surface 62 that faces an outer side in a longitudinal direction of the second connector, two sides (right and left surfaces of 62 in figure 5) in a width direction (left-right direction) of the second connector H1, an upper surface (surface of 65 facing out of figure 7) that faces a mating surface side of the first connector S1, and an inner wall surface (surface of 65 facing towards terminals 8P in figure 6) that faces an inner side in the longitudinal direction of the second connector H1 and faces the protrusion,
and wherein the second shield includes an outer wall 51, an inner wall 54, an upper wall 52, and an outwardly extending flange portion 55, the upper wall 52 of the second shield 5 coupling an upper end of the outer wall 51 of the second shield 5 and an upper end of the inner wall 54 of the second shield 5, the outwardly extending flange portion 55 of the second shield 5 connected to a lower end of the outer wall 51 of the second shield 5, the second shield 5 being accommodated in the recess 10S of the first shield 1, and the upper wall 52 covers at least a part of the upper surface of each protruding end part”.
Shimomura does not teach the first shield comprising: “an outwardly extending flange portion… the outwardly extending flange portion connected to a lower end of the outer wall…
and the flange portion” continuous continues over the entire periphery of the first connector main body. However, Shimomura teaches, as shown in figures 1-13, the second connector H1 having a shield 5 comprising: “an outwardly extending flange portion 55… the outwardly extending flange portion 55 connected to a lower end of the outer wall 51… and the flange portion 55” continuous continues over the entire periphery of the connector main body 6. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to change the shape of the outer wall of the first connector to have an outwardly extending flange connected to the lower end of the outer wall in order to establish a more stable base for the first connect on the circuit board. Also, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Shimomura does not teach: “and the inner wall covers at least a part of the inner wall surface of each protruding end part”. The prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious all the limitations of claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claims 7 and 12, the Applicant argues that Shimomura does not teach the inner side shield being integrally formed with the connector main body. However, this is an obvious modification to Shimomura.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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